Language Model Security Database

Agentic Large Language Model (LLM) systems utilizing persistent memory, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, and external tool connectors are vulnerable to Logic-layer Prompt Control Injection (LPCI). An attacker can inject obfuscated (e.g., encoded, structurally nested, or semantically reframed) payloads into external memory stores or RAG documents. These payloads bypass conventional inference-time plaintext content filters, persist across session boundaries, and remain dormant…

Large Language Model (LLM) based web agents (such as those built using the BrowserUse scaffold) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks when autonomously navigating and processing untrusted web content. Unlike standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), this vulnerability occurs when the LLM orchestrator consumes the DOM or visual screenshots of a webpage containing concealed or contextually disguised adversarial instructions. The LLM interprets these embedded text strings as…

LLM agent frameworks that rely on external or marketplace-distributed skills are vulnerable to supply-chain payload execution and confused deputy attacks. Attackers can inject malicious skills into agent registries by exploiting the fundamental skill architecture (applicability conditions, policies, and interfaces). By manipulating skill metadata and applicability predicates, attackers force the agent to retrieve and activate the malicious skill across broad task categories. Malicious…

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to machine unlearning techniques (specifically AltPO, GradDiff, IDKDPO, IDKNLL, UNDIAL, NPO, and SimNPO) contain a vulnerability regarding the persistence of latent knowledge. Despite achieving high "forgetting" scores on standard, benign benchmarks, these models remain susceptible to black-box evolutionary adversarial attacks. An attacker can utilize an automated framework (REBEL) comprising a "Hacker" model and a "Judge" model to iteratively mutate…

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architectures are vulnerable to internal-channel data leakage due to the absence of access controls and data minimization in inter-agent communication and shared memory. Frameworks such as LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGPT, and MetaGPT propagate complete task contexts—including unredacted sensitive data—between specialized agents during task delegation. Because traditional LLM security guardrails only filter final user-facing outputs, attackers or benign…

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "sleeper agent" data poisoning attacks. An attacker injects specific trigger phrases into the training corpus, causing the model to learn a conditional policy: behaving normally for standard inputs but executing a malicious target behavior when the trigger is present. These backdoors persist through safety training and alignment. The vulnerability stems from the model's strong memorization of poisoning…

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…

Architectural limitations in Meta's Llama-Prompt-Guard-2-86M and Llama-Guard-3-8B cause them to fail at detecting indirect prompt injections and agentic tool-use attacks, with detection rates dropping as low as 7-37%. Llama-Guard-3-8B enforces strict user/assistant message alternation and lacks support for tool-use roles; attempting to process messages with role: "tool" or role: "ipython" causes the chat template to raise an error, preventing evaluation entirely. PromptGuard 2 operates…

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…

OpenClaw is vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI), Tool-Return Manipulation, and Persistent Memory Poisoning. The agent incorporates untrusted external content (e.g., fetched web pages) and external tool outputs directly into its observation stream without sufficient isolation. An attacker can embed malicious payloads into these external channels to hijack the agent's planning and execution trace. This allows the attacker to silently trigger high-privilege actions via OpenClaw's Skills…