Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-2-13B, Mistral-7B, and Phi-3.5-mini, are vulnerable to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) adversarial prompt injections that undermine factual recall. Termed the "$\chi$mera" (Chimera) attack framework, this vulnerability exists when an attacker intercepts and modifies user queries (e.g., via malicious browser extensions, compromised frontends, or proxy middleware) before they reach the victim model. By appending adversarial…

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that support fine-tuning, allowing an attacker to bypass safety alignments using a small, benign dataset. The attack, "Attack via Overfitting," is a two-stage process. In Stage 1, the model is fine-tuned on a small set of benign questions (e.g., 10) paired with identical, repetitive refusal answers. This induces an overfitted state where the model learns to refuse all prompts, creating a sharp minimum in the loss landscape and making it…

Large Language Models (LLMs) that use special tokens to define conversational structure (e.g., via chat templates) are vulnerable to a jailbreak attack named MetaBreak. An attacker can inject these special tokens, or regular tokens with high semantic similarity in the embedding space, into a user prompt. This manipulation allows the attacker to bypass the model's internal safety alignment and external content moderation systems. The attack leverages four primitives: 1. Response Injection…

Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, LLaMA-3, and GPT-3.5-Turbo, are vulnerable to multimodal prompt injection attacks. These models fail to distinguish between system-level instructions and user-provided content within the context window. Attackers can exploit this by embedding malicious instructions in direct text, indirect sources (such as third-party webpages or PDFs), or visual inputs (images). Successful exploitation results in the model prioritizing the injected adversarial…

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) and multi-label text classification systems that allows for Textual Dynamic Outputs Attacks (TDOA). This technique enables hard-label black-box attacks against systems with variable or generative output spaces (where the number of labels or specific label tokens are not fixed). The attack functions by training a surrogate model on clustered coarse-grained labels derived from the victim model's fine-grained dynamic outputs. It subsequently…

Large Language Model (LLM) inference-time watermarking schemes are vulnerable to evasion via character-level perturbations that disrupt the model's tokenizer. Unlike token-level attacks (e.g., synonym replacement), character-level edits—such as homoglyph substitutions, zero-width character insertions, and typos—force the tokenizer to segment a single semantic unit into multiple sub-word tokens. This fragmentation alters the context window used by the watermarking hashing function (e.g., the…

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanisms of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, identified as the "Attractive Metadata Attack" (AMA). This flaw allows an adversary to manipulate the metadata (names, descriptions, and parameter schemas) of malicious external tools to statistically maximize the likelihood of their selection by the agent, without requiring prompt injection or access to model internals. The vulnerability exploits the agent’s semantic scoring function used to map user…

Large language models that support a developer role in their API are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack that leverages malicious developer messages. An attacker can craft a developer message that overrides the model's safety alignment by setting a permissive persona, providing explicit instructions to bypass refusals, and using few-shot examples of harmful query-response pairs. This technique, named D-Attack, is effective on its own. A more advanced variant, DH-CoT, enhances the attack by…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents capable of invoking external APIs are vulnerable to intent integrity violations. When an agent receives natural language instructions that are ambiguous, underspecified, or contain values not supported by the underlying API schema, the agent frequently fails to preserve user intent. Instead of rejecting the request or asking for clarification, the model may hallucinate parameter values, map unsupported requests to unsafe defaults, or execute actions on…

Alibaba Cloud PAI-Judge and PAI-Judge-Plus are vulnerable to a composite adversarial attack that exploits attention mechanism limitations in Large Language Models (LLMs). An authenticated attacker can manipulate automated evaluation outcomes by appending a long, irrelevant text suffix (approximately 1000 to 2000+ characters) to a response containing adversarial perturbations. This "long-suffix" strategy overwhelms the judge model's context window, causing the attention mechanism to degrade and…