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

396 entries

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

Updated 12/29/2024

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to "editing attacks," where malicious actors manipulate the model's knowledge base to inject misinformation or bias. This is achieved by using existing knowledge editing techniques to subtly alter the model's internal representations, causing it to generate outputs reflecting the injected content, even on seemingly unrelated prompts. The attack can be remarkably stealthy, with minimal impact on the model's overall performance in other areas.

Can Editing LLMs Inject Harm?
Affects: Alpaca 7B, Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B +2 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to generate genuinely fallacious reasoning. When prompted to create a false procedure for a harmful task, the LLMs instead leak the correct, harmful procedure while incorrectly claiming it's false. This vulnerability allows bypassing safety mechanisms and eliciting harmful outputs.

Large Language Models Are Involuntary Truth-Tellers: Exploiting Fallacy Failure for Jailbreak Attacks
Affects: Gemini Pro, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

Source: arXiv

Updated 7/14/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that utilize low-perplexity prompts to elicit unsafe content. These prompts, while statistically likely to occur in normal conversation, can trigger the generation of harmful or toxic outputs that evade standard safety filters. The vulnerability stems from the model's inability to reliably distinguish between benign and malicious intents within the statistical distribution of natural language.

ASTPrompter: Weakly Supervised Automated Language Model Red-Teaming to Identify Low-Perplexity Toxic Prompts
Affects: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 7B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

A vulnerability exists in several large language models (LLMs) where the safety alignment mechanisms are susceptible to bypass through "Multilingual Blending." This attack consists of crafting queries and eliciting responses using a mixture of multiple languages, significantly reducing the effectiveness of existing safety filters. The vulnerability stems from the models' ability to process and generate text in multiple languages, which, when combined in specific ways, can confuse the safety…

Multilingual blending: Llm safety alignment evaluation with language mixture
Affects: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o

Source: arXiv

The Automated Progressive Red Teaming (APRT) framework exploits vulnerabilities in large language models (LLMs) by iteratively generating adversarial prompts. APRT uses an Intention Expanding LLM to generate diverse initial attack samples, an Intention Hiding LLM to obfuscate malicious intent, and an Evil Maker to filter ineffective prompts. This process progressively identifies and exploits weaknesses, leading to the generation of unsafe yet seemingly helpful responses from the target LLM.

Automated progressive red teaming
Affects: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B Chat +5 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

A training-time attack against open-source LLMs that injects adversarial embeddings into the model's token embeddings without modifying model weights. This allows an attacker to introduce backdoors, jailbreaks, or prompt stealing capabilities by simply modifying specific token embeddings within the model file, maintaining model utility for non-triggered inputs. The attack leverages soft prompt tuning to optimize adversarial embeddings, which are then assigned to chosen trigger tokens.

Sos! soft prompt attack against open-source large language models
Affects: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 7B, Mistral 7B Instruct +2 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

Appending a single whitespace character (space) or certain punctuation marks to the end of an LLM's input template can bypass safety mechanisms and cause the model to generate unsafe, biased, or factually incorrect outputs, even if the original prompt was benign. This vulnerability is due to the statistical properties of single-character tokens in the model's training data, causing unintended behavior in the model's token prediction.

Single character perturbations break llm alignment

Source: arXiv

Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to a bi-modal adversarial prompt attack (BAP). BAP leverages a combined textual and visual prompt to bypass safety mechanisms and elicit harmful responses, even in models designed to resist single-modality attacks. The attack first introduces a query-agnostic adversarial perturbation to the visual prompt, making the model more likely to respond positively regardless of the text. Then, an LLM refines the textual prompt iteratively to achieve…

Jailbreak Vision Language Models via Bi-Modal Adversarial Prompt

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a black-box query-response optimization attack (QROA). QROA iteratively refines a malicious prompt suffix using a surrogate model to maximize a reward function that measures the likelihood of eliciting harmful content from the LLM. This attack does not require access to the model's internal parameters or logits; it operates solely via standard query-response interactions.

QROA: A Black-Box Query-Response Optimization Attack on LLMs
Affects: Falcon 7B Instruct, Llama 2 7B Chat, Mistral 7B Instruct +1 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) fine-tuned using chat templates are vulnerable to ChatBug, allowing malicious actors to bypass safety mechanisms by crafting prompts that intentionally deviate from the expected template format or overflow message fields. This exploits the LLM’s reliance on the template structure without enforcing similar constraints on user input.

ChatBug: A Common Vulnerability of Aligned LLMs Induced by Chat Templates
Affects: Claude 2.1, GPT-3.5 Turbo

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.