Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed Sep 9, 2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1119 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

58 entries

Matches every word across titles, descriptions, sources, affected systems, and models.

Semantic Masking Image Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple Text-to-Image (T2I) generation systems and their associated multi-stage moderation pipelines are vulnerable to low-effort semantic obfuscation attacks. Attackers can systematically bypass Input Compliance Checks (ICC), Semantic Safety Checks (SSC), and Post-Generation Moderation (PGM) by embedding restricted concepts into benign natural language contexts. By utilizing techniques such as Material Substitution, Artistic Reframing, Pseudo-Educational Framing, and Ambiguous Action…

Low-Effort Jailbreak Attacks Against Text-to-Image Safety Filters
Evaluated models: Sora, Stable Diffusion v1.4

Agentic Robot Instruction Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

SABER: A Stealthy Agentic Black-Box Attack Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

Reasoning-Oriented Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the compositional reasoning architecture of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass multimodal safety alignments using a technique known as Reasoning-Oriented Programming (ROP). Current safety mechanisms primarily target explicit malicious patterns at the perception level (early layers). This vulnerability exploits late-stage reasoning by decomposing a harmful objective into a set of spatially isolated, semantically benign visual "gadgets". Because…

Reasoning-Oriented Programming: Chaining Semantic Gadgets to Jailbreak Large Vision Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct, LLaVA v1.6 Mistral 7B, Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct+4 more
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct
  • LLaVA v1.6 Mistral 7B
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GLM-4V Plus
  • Qwen-VL Plus

Assembling Malice From Benign

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A semantic slot filling vulnerability in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety filters and elicit prohibited content via a single query. The attack, known as StructAttack, decomposes a harmful instruction into a central topic and locally benign-appearing semantic slot types (e.g., "Raw Materials", "Making Process"). These individual slots are embedded into structured visual prompts (such as mind maps, tables, or sunburst diagrams) alongside harmless distractor…

Models as Lego Builders: Assembling Malice from Benign Blocks via Semantic Blueprints
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash 001, Gemini 2.5 Flash+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash 001
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen3-VL Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • InternVL3 9B

Two-Frame Infilling Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A temporal trajectory infilling vulnerability in Text-to-Video (T2V) generative models allows attackers to bypass input and output safety filters to generate policy-violating content. The vulnerability is exploited using a fragmented prompting technique known as Two Frames Matter (TFM). An attacker submits a prompt that specifies only sparse boundary conditions (the start and end frames) using semantically suggestive but lexically benign alternatives, entirely omitting the intermediate action…

Two Frames Matter: A Temporal Attack for Text-to-Video Model Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: Not reported

Inter-Turn Modality Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to alignment bypass via Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS). By systematically rotating the input modality (e.g., alternating between text, audio, and image) across successive turns in a multi-turn adversarial conversation, an attacker can destabilize the model's safety defenses. The cross-modal transition mechanism exploits alignment gaps between differing input processing pipelines, accelerating the erosion of safety guardrails and…

MUSE: A Run-Centric Platform for Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3 Flash Preview, GPT-4o+1 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Flash Preview
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude Sonnet 4

Multi-Image Semantic Reconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignments via Multi-Image Dispersion and Semantic Reconstruction (MIDAS). Attackers decompose malicious instructions into risk-bearing semantic subunits, fragment them, and distribute them across multiple benign-looking Game-style Visual Reasoning (GVR) puzzles (e.g., Letter Equations, Rank-and-Read, Odd-One-Out). A sanitized, persona-driven textual prompt with sequential placeholders is then used to…

MIDAS: Multi-Image Dispersion and Semantic Reconstruction for Jailbreaking MLLMs
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o+2 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash Thinking
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5 Chat
  • QVQ-Max

Multi-Modal Expansion Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn, multi-modal jailbreak attacks where malicious intent is incrementally introduced and obfuscated through intertwined text and image prompts. Attackers can systematically bypass safety alignments by starting with self-optimized, benign-seeming conversation starters (horizontal expansion) and progressively stacking text and image attack augmentations across multiple conversation turns (vertical expansion). Furthermore, models fail…

FERRET: Framework for Expansion Reliant Red Teaming
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3 Haiku, Llama 4 Maverick

Vision-Text Adaptive Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails via a Multi-Turn Adaptive Prompting Attack (MAPA). Instead of triggering safety mechanisms with an immediate, explicit malicious request, the attacker iteratively injects malicious intent across multiple conversation turns by alternating between text and visual modalities. At each turn, the attack dynamically tests three prompt configurations (unconnected text only, unconnected text + malicious…

Multi-Turn Adaptive Prompting Attack on Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 11B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.2 11B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
Evaluated models: Not reported

Research methodology

Entries summarize publicly available primary-source security research. Model names reflect only systems explicitly evaluated by the cited paper, and measurements are research-reported unless independent verification is stated.

Discovery and publication are separate: new papers enter a candidate queue, then require human review and explicit approval before publication. Updates follow that review process, not a guaranteed daily publishing schedule. “Last analyzed” is the newest analysis date among published entries; it does not mean that all recent research has been covered.