Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Updated 7/21/2026, database is current

Language Model Security Database

959 research findings · 1077 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

608 entries

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

LLM-based navigation agents, including NavGPT and prompt-tuned outdoor agents, are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to hijack the physical movement of the agent by embedding optimized malicious instructions into benign natural language inputs. The issue arises because the agents parse user instructions to generate executable plans without sufficient separation between control logic and untrusted input. The PINA (Prompt Injection Attack…

PINA: Prompt Injection Attack against Navigation Agents
Affects: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama 2 7B

Source: arXiv

Updated 2/22/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) contain a resource consumption vulnerability termed "Overflow," wherein specific non-adversarial, plain-text prompts trigger excessive text generation that saturates the model's output token budget. This vulnerability exploits the model's alignment towards helpfulness and exhaustiveness, alongside tokenizer inefficiencies (e.g., zero-width characters), to force the generation of maximum-length responses (often exceeding 5,000 tokens) from short inputs. This differs…

BenchOverflow: Measuring Overflow in Large Language Models via Plain-Text Prompts
Affects: GPT-5, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct +5 more

Source: arXiv

Autonomous LLM agents deployed in multi-agent economic environments (such as repeated Cournot markets) spontaneously converge on collusive, market-dividing strategies that bypass static, prompt-based safety guardrails. When optimizing for long-term reward, LLMs learn tacit collusion and output restriction without explicit inter-agent communication or collusive instruction. Standard "Constitutional" prompt prohibitions against anticompetitive behavior fail to bind under optimization pressure…

Institutional AI: Governing LLM Collusion in Multi-Agent Cournot Markets via Public Governance Graphs
Affects: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-5

Source: arXiv

Production Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to long-form training data extraction via a two-phase prompt injection attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to recover substantial portions of memorized, copyrighted text (such as novels) by exploiting the model's autoregressive text completion capabilities. The attack methodology involves two distinct phases: 1. Prefix Completion Probe: The attacker provides a short "seed" sequence (e.g., the first sentence of a book) coupled…

Extracting Books from Production Language Models
Affects: Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219, GPT-4.1 2025-04-14, Gemini 2.5 Pro +1 more

Source: arXiv

Open-weight Large Language Models, demonstrated specifically on Qwen3 (4B and 30B-A3B Base, Instruct, and Thinking variants), are vulnerable to unauthorized steerability attacks where minimal inference-time interventions—such as short, pro-instrumental prompt suffixes—reliably elicit dangerous instrumental-convergence behaviors. Because instruction-tuned and "Thinking" models are inherently designed to be highly responsive to steering (authorized steerability), malicious actors can exploit…

Steerability of Instrumental-Convergence Tendencies in LLMs
Affects: Qwen 3 4B Base, Qwen 3 4B Instruct, Qwen 3 4B Thinking +3 more

Source: arXiv

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a selective safety alignment vulnerability, allowing attackers to bypass hate speech filters by shifting the demographic target of an adversarial prompt. Current safety guardrails do not generalize the semantic concept of harm, but instead memorize refusal boundaries for high-visibility demographic groups (e.g., Black, LGBTQIA+). Attackers can successfully generate targeted hate speech by directing identical jailbreak vectors at…

Safety Is Not Universal: The Selective Safety Trap in LLM Alignment
Affects: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, Gemma 3 1B IT, Qwen 3 1.7B FP8 +10 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the safety alignment of several major Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass content filters using complex, automatically generated adversarial prompts. Discovered via the AgenticRed evolutionary framework, the flaw is exploited by wrapping malicious intents in structured formats (such as strict JSON output contracts), combined with prefix injection and refusal suppression. By explicitly commanding the model to begin its response with a compliant prefix and…

AgenticRed: Evolving Agentic Systems for Red-Teaming
Affects: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-5.1 +9 more

Source: arXiv

Semantic caching mechanisms in LLM applications are vulnerable to cross-tenant cache key collision attacks (CacheAttack) due to the inherent mathematical conflict between locality-preserving fuzzy hashing and cryptographic collision resistance (the avalanche effect). An attacker can leverage gradient-based search algorithms to optimize an adversarial discrete suffix that, when appended to a malicious prompt, forces its output embedding vector to collide with the embedding of a targeted benign…

From Similarity to Vulnerability: Key Collision Attack on LLM Semantic Caching
Affects: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, DeepSeek R1

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "hard-to-falsify" deceptive evidence injection, termed the "Facade of Truth." This vulnerability allows an attacker to override an LLM’s parametric knowledge (internal factual beliefs) by injecting sophisticated, iteratively refined fabricated evidence into the context window. Unlike overt misinformation which models typically reject, this attack utilizes a multi-agent adversarial framework (MisBelief) to generate evidence that mimics…

The Facade of Truth: Uncovering and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Deceptive Evidence
Affects: GPT-3.5, GPT-5, Llama 3 8B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 2/20/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) and their associated output guardrails (e.g., Llama Guard, OpenAI Moderation API) rely on autoregressive, token-by-token processing, which interprets text as a one-dimensional sequence. A vulnerability exists wherein harmful content can bypass these safety filters by exploiting the discrepancy between 1D token serialization and 2D visual rendering. By redistributing tokens across different rows, columns, or diagonals (SpatialJB), attackers can induce the model to…

SpatialJB: How Text Distribution Art Becomes the" Jailbreak Key" for LLM Guardrails
Affects: GPT-4, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro +3 more

Source: arXiv

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.