Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to Attribute Inference Attacks, where an attacker exploits the model's reasoning capabilities to deduce sensitive personal attributes (e.g., age, gender, location, income level) from seemingly innocuous, unclassified user-generated text. Unlike traditional privacy leaks that rely on the memorization of training data, this vulnerability leverages the model's zero-shot inference and contextual deduction. Because the attack prompts are benign in nature…

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to iterative knowledge-extraction attacks designed to reconstruct the underlying private knowledge base. The vulnerability exists due to the decoupled optimization of the retrieval and generation phases. Attackers can craft adversarial queries consisting of two distinct components: an "Information" component (optimized via gradient descent or random sampling to steer embeddings toward specific, diverse regions of the vector space) and…

A side-channel information leakage vulnerability exists in the "locate-then-edit" paradigm of Large Language Model (LLM) knowledge editing, specifically affecting algorithms such as ROME, MEMIT, and AlphaEdit. The parameter update matrix ($\Delta W$) generated during the editing process preserves the algebraic structure of the edited data. Specifically, the row space of the parameter difference matrix encodes a mathematical fingerprint of the key vectors associated with the edited subjects. An…

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) contain a privacy vulnerability within their self-attention mechanisms that allows for Membership Inference Attacks (MIA). Pre-training induces distinct, highly structured, and concentrated attention patterns for data samples included in the training set, differentiating them from non-member samples which exhibit noisier, less consistent attention flows. An attacker with white-box access to the model parameters (specifically attention weight…

LLaMA-series models (specifically evaluated on LLaMA-1B and LLaMA-3B) exhibit memorization of structured recommender system training data, specifically the MovieLens-1M dataset. While manual prompting yields inconsistent results, the application of Automatic Prompt Engineering (APE)—which treats prompt design as an optimization problem using iterative refinement—allows for the successful extraction of item-level training data (e.g., movie titles and genres) with exact-match accuracy surpassing…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel privacy jailbreak attack, dubbed PIG (Privacy Jailbreak Attack on LLMs via Gradient-based Iterative In-Context Optimization). PIG leverages in-context learning and gradient-based iterative optimization to extract Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from LLMs, bypassing built-in safety mechanisms. The attack iteratively refines a crafted prompt based on gradient information, focusing on tokens related to PII entities, thereby…

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing safety mechanisms based on supervised fine-tuning and preference alignment exhibit a vulnerability to "steering" attacks. Maliciously crafted prompts or input manipulations can exploit representation vectors within the model to either bypass censorship ("refusal-compliance vector") or suppress the model's reasoning process ("thought suppression vector"), resulting in the generation of unintended or harmful outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated…

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems employing standard dense embedding models (e.g., Sentence-T5, SimCSE-BERT, RoBERTa, MPNet) for End-Cloud collaboration are vulnerable to Embedding Inversion Attacks (EIA). While embeddings are vector representations designed to be human-unrecognizable, they retain sufficient semantic information to allow an attacker with access to the vectors (e.g., a malicious or compromised cloud provider) to reconstruct the original sensitive plaintext input.