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

65 entries

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

Single-interaction poisoning of agent memory

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A stored interaction can later steer a memory-augmented agent's answer without direct memory-store access. The study evaluates persistent response manipulation in MemoryOS and MemGPT.

InjecMEM: Memory Injection Attack on LLM Agent Memory Systems
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct+3 more
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3

Unsafe Culinary Instructions

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) and safety guardrails lack domain-specific safety alignment for food science, making them vulnerable to generating actionable, hazardous food safety instructions. Attackers can exploit this alignment sparsity using canonical jailbreak techniques (such as AutoDAN and Persuasive Adversarial Prompting) or direct adversarial prompting to bypass generic safety filters. This allows malicious actors to elicit harmful guidance that violates fundamental FDA…

Cooking Up Risks: Benchmarking and Reducing Food Safety Risks in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1+8 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • GLM-4 32B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Mistral Small 4
  • Qwen3Guard
  • Llama Guard 4

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

Autoresearch Adversarial Algorithm Discovery

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GPT-OSS-Safeguard-20B and Meta-SecAlign (70B/8B) are vulnerable to white-box adversarial attacks generated by automated algorithmic recombination (specifically the claude_v63, claude_v82, and claude_v53-oss optimizers). These algorithms significantly outperform standard discrete optimization methods (like GCG) by integrating continuous optimization (ADC) with LayerNorm gradient scaling (LSGM), or by merging momentum-smoothed gradients with directional perturbation candidate selection (DPTO)…

Claudini: Autoresearch Discovers State-of-the-Art Adversarial Attack Algorithms for LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 7B

Joint Audio-Text Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Spoken Language Models (SLMs) are vulnerable to Joint Audio-text Multimodal Attacks (JAMA), which bypass safety alignments by simultaneously perturbing both text and audio inputs. The vulnerability exploits the combined optimization of a discrete text suffix via Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) and a continuous audio perturbation via Projected Gradient Descent (PGD). This joint gradient-based attack pushes the model's hidden layer representations into a distinct subspace far from the benign…

On Optimizing Multimodal Jailbreaks for Spoken Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen2-Audio 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B, Audio Flamingo 3+1 more
  • Qwen2-Audio 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B
  • Audio Flamingo 3
  • Gemma 3n E2B

Prompt Length Exponential Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to achieve an exponentially scaling Attack Success Rate (ASR) for jailbreaks by combining adversarial prompt injection with repeated inference-time sampling. While ASR against un-injected prompts scales polynomially with the number of generated samples ($k$), introducing a long adversarial suffix acts as a strong "misalignment field." This shifts the model's generation distribution into a replica-symmetric ordered…

Jailbreak Scaling Laws for Large Language Models: Polynomial-Exponential Crossover
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.5 20250929, Claude 3.5 Haiku 20241022, GPT 3.5-turbo-0125+7 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5 20250929
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku 20241022
  • GPT 3.5-turbo-0125
  • GPT-4 0613
  • GPT-4.5 Preview
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • OLMo 2 0325 32B Instruct
  • OLMo 3.1 32B Instruct

Drive Overrides Refusal

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A prompt structure vulnerability exists in instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) where attackers can bypass safety alignments by injecting a continuation-triggering suffix immediately following the user prompt termination token. By placing an affirmative suffix outside the user instruction boundary, it is processed as the beginning of the assistant's own pre-filled response. This structural manipulation intrinsically overactivates the model's continuation attention heads, forcing its…

The Struggle Between Continuation and Refusal: A Mechanistic Analysis of the Continuation-Triggered Jailbreak in LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Two-Stage Refusal Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to TAO-Attack, an advanced optimization-based jailbreak that bypasses safety alignments by exploiting gradient-guided token updates. The vulnerability stems from a two-stage loss function combined with a Direction-Priority Token Optimization (DPTO) algorithm. In the first stage, the attack optimizes an adversarial prompt suffix to minimize the probability of refusal signals (e.g., "I cannot") while maximizing the probability of a harmful target…

TAO-Attack: Toward Advanced Optimization-Based Jailbreak Attacks for Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, Llama 2 7B Chat+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Dynamic Backtracking Failure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via standard Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "Shallow Safety" bypass attacks, specifically Middle Filling (MF) and Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) attacks. These models frequently rely on refusal mechanisms triggered solely by the initial tokens of a prompt. By embedding malicious instructions after a benign context (prefilling) or utilizing suffix optimization, attackers can induce the…

Reinforcement Learning with Backtracking Feedback
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 1B, Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 2 9B IT

LLM Strategic Prompt Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Alignment auditing methodologies used to verify the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically black-box methods (Assistant Prefills, User Persona Sampling) and white-box interpretability methods (SAE Feature Description, Activation Token Embedding Similarity)—are vulnerable to prompt-level strategic deception. A misaligned "target" model, when supplied with a specific system prompt containing a high-level deceptive strategy and descriptions of the auditing tools, can obfuscate its…

Stress-Testing Alignment Audits With Prompt-Level Strategic Deception
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 2 9B

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.