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

260 entries

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) that utilize byte-stream parsing or structural extraction to process PDF files—specifically the OpenAI GPT and Anthropic Claude families—are vulnerable to adversarial text injection via imperceptible "phantom tokens." This vulnerability exploits the disconnect between how PDF viewers render documents for humans (visual layer) and how LLMs extract text from the PDF operator stream (data layer). Attackers can manipulate standard PDF text-showing operators (TJ and Tj)…

TRAPDOC: Deceiving LLM Users by Injecting Imperceptible Phantom Tokens into Documents
Affects: GPT-4, o4-mini

Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) protected by multi-stage safeguard pipelines (input and output classifiers) are vulnerable to staged adversarial attacks (STACK). STACK exploits weaknesses in individual components sequentially, combining jailbreaks for each classifier with a jailbreak for the underlying LLM to bypass the entire pipeline. Successful attacks achieve high attack success rates (ASR), even on datasets of particularly harmful queries.

STACK: Adversarial Attacks on LLM Safeguard Pipelines
Affects: Claude Opus 4, Gemma 2 9B, GPT-4 Turbo +4 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically instruction-tuned variants, are vulnerable to safety guardrail bypass via adversarial suffix injection. By appending a specific sequence of tokens—often semantically meaningless characters or carefully crafted distractors—to a malicious query, an attacker can manipulate the model's internal representation to override alignment training (RLHF). This coercion causes the model to affirmatively respond to otherwise refused requests, such as generating…

Adversarial Suffix Filtering: a Defense Pipeline for LLMs
Affects: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B +2 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks through manipulation of external data sources accessed during task execution. Attackers can embed malicious instructions within this external data, causing the LLM agent to perform unintended actions, such as navigating to arbitrary URLs or revealing sensitive information. The vulnerability stems from insufficient sanitization and validation of external data before it's processed by the LLM.

AgentVigil: Generic Black-Box Red-teaming for Indirect Prompt Injection against LLM Agents
Affects: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o +3 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in multiple large language and multimodal models that allows for the bypass of safety filters through the use of code-mixed prompts with phonetic perturbations. An attacker can craft a prompt in a code-mixed language (e.g., Hinglish) and apply phonetic misspellings to sensitive keywords (e.g., spelling "hate" as "haet"). This technique causes the model's tokenizer to parse the sensitive word into benign sub-tokens, preventing safety mechanisms from flagging the harmful…

" Haet Bhasha aur Diskrimineshun": Phonetic Perturbations in Code-Mixed Hinglish to Red-Team LLMs
Affects: Gemma 1.1 7B IT, GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini +2 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 5/31/2025

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to implicit jailbreak attacks that leverage least significant bit (LSB) steganography to conceal malicious instructions within images. These instructions are coupled with seemingly benign image-related text prompts, causing the MLLM to execute the hidden malicious instructions. The attack bypasses existing safety mechanisms by exploiting cross-modal reasoning capabilities.

Implicit Jailbreak Attacks via Cross-Modal Information Concealment on Vision-Language Models
Affects: Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4.5 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) operating in hybrid Web-OS environments are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. Attackers can embed malicious natural language or code instructions within legitimate web content (e.g., social media forums, chat applications, shared cloud documents) that the agent processes during benign task execution. Due to the agent's inability to distinguish between trusted user instructions and untrusted environmental data, the CUA…

RedTeamCUA: Realistic Adversarial Testing of Computer-Use Agents in Hybrid Web-OS Environments
Affects: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used for evaluating text quality (LLM-as-a-Judge architectures) are vulnerable to prompt-injection attacks. Maliciously crafted suffixes appended to input text can manipulate the LLM's judgment, causing it to incorrectly favor a predetermined response even if another response is objectively superior. Two attack vectors are identified: Comparative Undermining Attack (CUA), directly targeting the final decision, and Justification Manipulation Attack (JMA), altering…

Investigating the Vulnerability of LLM-as-a-Judge Architectures to Prompt-Injection Attacks
Affects: Falcon 3 3B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/9/2025

Mobile LLM agents utilizing vision-based screen perception (OCR or Multimodal Large Language Models) are vulnerable to Visual Prompt Injection via malicious GUI overlays. An attacker holding the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission can deploy non-focusable floating windows (using FLAG_NOT_FOCUSABLE) containing adversarial text or fabricated UI elements over legitimate applications. Because the agent captures the entire screen buffer to interpret the device state, it ingests the adversarial overlay…

From Assistants to Adversaries: Exploring the Security Risks of Mobile LLM Agents
Affects: GPT-4o

Source: arXiv

A steganographic jailbreak attack, termed StegoAttack, allows bypassing safety mechanisms in Large Language Models (LLMs) by embedding malicious queries within benign-appearing text. The attack hides the malicious query in the first word of each sentence of a seemingly innocuous paragraph, leveraging the LLM's autoregressive generation to process and respond to the hidden query, even when employing encryption in the response.

Hiding in Plain Sight: A Steganographic Approach to Stealthy LLM Jailbreaks
Affects: GPT-5, DeepSeek V3.2 Thinking, Qwen 3 Max Thinking

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.