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

79 entries

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

Selective refusal gaps in visual question answering

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

KoNA measures whether vision-language models answer valid image questions while refusing unsafe components or correcting unsupported premises. Its 9,300 question-answer pairs include mixed and fully answerable controls.

Knowing What Not to Answer: Selective Non-Compliance in Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InternVL3 2B Instruct, InternVL3-78B-Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct+5 more
  • InternVL3 2B Instruct
  • InternVL3-78B-Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • GPT-5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • InternVL3-2B-KoNA
  • Qwen2.5-VL-3B-KoNA

Information-Overloading Jailbreaks in Vision-Language Models

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes a reproducible black-box multimodal jailbreak evaluation, INFER/INFER+, in which dense image typography, nested cross-modal references, recursive visual layouts, and entropy-guided search increase processing complexity and weaken refusal behavior in large vision-language models. The authors report average ASRs of 88.6% on open-source models and 84.0% on commercial models; these are paper-reported measurements, not independently verified facts. For safe defensive…

Overloading Large Vision-Language Models for Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: Qwen3-VL 8B, Qwen2-VL-7B, InternVL3.5-8B+5 more
  • Qwen3-VL 8B
  • Qwen2-VL-7B
  • InternVL3.5-8B
  • InternVL 2 8B
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Multilingual Flowchart Jailbreaks in Vision-Language Models

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

MLingualFC is a reproducible black-box safety evaluation showing that harmful instructions rendered as multilingual flowchart images can bypass vision-language model safeguards more often than equivalent text-only inputs. The paper evaluates horizontal, vertical, and tortuous layouts across English, Hindi, Punjabi, Spanish, Romanian, and German. Reported results vary substantially by language, script, layout, and model; these are paper-reported measurements, not independently verified…

MLingualFC: Evaluating Jailbreak Vulnerabilities in Multilingual Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Gemma-4-E4B-it, Pangea-7B

Visual-Modality Jailbreaks Bypass VLM Safety Alignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper reports a reproducible black-box evaluation showing that vision-language models can recover prohibited intent encoded or implied through ostensibly benign visual inputs. Four tested families—visual ciphers, object replacement, text replacement, and analogy riddles—expose a cross-modality alignment gap: safeguards effective for explicit text may not reliably apply after harmful semantics are reconstructed from images. These are paper-reported results, not independently verified…

Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models Through the Visual Modality
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3 Flash+3 more
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Qwen3-VL-235B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B

Diverse VLA Linguistic Fragility

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models suffer from a severe linguistic fragility vulnerability where semantically equivalent but structurally complex adversarial instructions cause catastrophic failures in visual grounding and geometric reasoning. Attackers can reliably induce physical execution failures in robotic manipulation tasks by applying semantic-preserving linguistic variations, such as synonymous rephrasing, syntactic restructuring, or the addition of fine-grained compositional…

Uncovering Linguistic Fragility in Vision-Language-Action Models via Diversity-Aware Red Teaming
Evaluated models: Pi-Zero, OpenVLA 7B, 3D-Diffuser Actor

Physical Infrared Semantic Disruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Infrared Vision-Language Models (IR-VLMs) allows attackers to systematically degrade open-ended semantic understanding—compromising classification, captioning, and Visual Question Answering (VQA)—via a physically deployable Universal Curved-Grid Patch (UCGP). Instead of manipulating explicit text labels, the attack disrupts the clean-category manifold in the model's visual representation space by maximizing orthogonal deviation energy from the principal subspace and forcing…

Revealing Physical-World Semantic Vulnerabilities: Universal Adversarial Patches for Infrared Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP

VLM Visual-Textual Misalignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to pixel-level adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject $\ell_p$-bounded, human-imperceptible noise into an input image to manipulate the model's multi-modal embedding space. This reliably causes the VLM to generate incorrect textual responses, hallucinate non-existent objects, or misclassify subjects, effectively decoupling the model's reasoning from the actual visual evidence. The vulnerability is exploitable via both white-box…

PDA: Text-Augmented Defense Framework for Robust Vision-Language Models against Adversarial Image Attacks
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.5 13B, DeepSeek VL 1.3B+2 more
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • DeepSeek VL 1.3B
  • InternVL3 2B
  • Ovis2 4B

Invisible Visual Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An imperceptible visual prompt injection vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to execute precise command-hijacking via a Covert Triggered dual-Target Attack (CoTTA). By embedding a bounded, learnable textual overlay ($L_\infty$ norm bound $\varepsilon \le 16$) and adversarial noise into an input image, the attack forces the source image's internal feature representation to align with both the textual and visual embeddings of an attacker-specified…

Adversarial Prompt Injection Attack on Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

X-Shaped Sparse VLM Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) relying on shared visual-textual representation spaces allows attackers to induce transferable cross-task semantic failures using an X-shaped Sparse Pixel Attack (XSPA). Attackers craft imperceptible adversarial perturbations restricted to a fixed geometric prior—two intersecting diagonal lines comprising approximately 1.76% of the image pixels. By jointly optimizing a classification objective with cross-task semantic guidance (target-semantic…

XSPA: Crafting Imperceptible X-Shaped Sparse Adversarial Perturbations for Transferable Attacks on VLMs
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP

VLM Image-Shift Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The integration of the visual modality in Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) introduces a vulnerability where appending an image to a harmful text prompt induces a "jailbreak-related representation shift" in the model's internal high-dimensional space. This shift forcibly steers the model's last-token hidden state away from a designated refusal state and into a distinct jailbreak state. The vulnerability occurs because the visual modality overrides the safety alignment of the underlying…

Understanding and Defending VLM Jailbreaks via Jailbreak-Related Representation Shift
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, ShareGPT4V 7B, InternVL-Chat 19B

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.