Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed Sep 9, 2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1119 evaluated models

Research findings

985 entries

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

Aggressive Compression Model Theft

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) hosted on inference servers are vulnerable to high-speed weight exfiltration attacks due to the inherent compressibility of transformer parameters when decompression constraints are relaxed. Adversaries with compromised server access can utilize aggressive lossy compression techniques—specifically additive quantization combined with k-means clustering—to reduce model size by factors of 16x to 100x (e.g., <1 bit per parameter). Unlike standard quantization for…

Aggressive Compression Enables LLM Weight Theft
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 1.5B, Qwen 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 0.5B+2 more
  • Qwen 2 1.5B
  • Qwen 2 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 0.5B
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B
  • Pythia 70M

Chinese Pattern Safety Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Lightweight Chinese Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that employ language-specific linguistic obfuscation techniques. Standard safety guardrails, which typically rely on keyword detection or semantic analysis of clean text, fail to identify malicious intent when sensitive terms are disguised using Chinese-specific adversarial patterns. These patterns include Pinyin Mix (replacing characters with Romanized phonetic spellings), Homophones (substituting visually…

CSSBench: Evaluating the Safety of Lightweight LLMs against Chinese-Specific Adversarial Patterns
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 1.7B, Qwen 3 8B+7 more
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • MiniCPM4 0.5B
  • MiniCPM4 8B
  • Hunyuan 0.5B
  • Hunyuan 1.8B
  • Hunyuan 7B
  • openPangu-Embedded 1B
  • openPangu-Embedded 7B

Direct Emoji Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Mistral 7B, Gemma 2 9B, and Llama 3 8B, are vulnerable to safety filter bypass via "Emoji-Based Jailbreaking." This adversarial prompt engineering technique exploits the model's tokenization and internal representation of Unicode emoji characters. By utilizing "emoji stuffing" (inserting emojis between textual tokens) or "emoji chaining" (using sequences of emojis as semantic proxies for sensitive terms), attackers can evade keyword-based safety…

Emoji-Based Jailbreaking of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2 7B+1 more
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

LoRA Unverified Product Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

In distributed Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning systems, a structural verification blind spot exists due to the decoupled aggregation of low-rank matrices. Frameworks typically evaluate and aggregate the $A$ and $B$ matrices independently to reduce computational overhead. A malicious client can exploit this by submitting individually benign $A$ and $B$ matrices that satisfy standard norm-based and similarity-based anomaly detection filters, but whose composite product ($A \times B$)…

Low Rank Comes with Low Security: Gradient Assembly Poisoning Attacks against Distributed LoRA-based LLM Systems
Evaluated models: ChatGLM2 6B, GPT-2 124M, Llama 7B+2 more
  • ChatGLM2 6B
  • GPT-2 124M
  • Llama 7B
  • Llama 13B
  • Llama 33B

Agent Identity Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-powered autonomous agents exhibit a "Belief-Dependent Vulnerability" where safety norms and bias suppression mechanisms designed to protect human users are contingent upon the agent's internal belief that it is interacting with a human. Attackers can exploit this via Belief Poisoning Attacks (BPA) to induce intergroup bias and antagonistic behavior toward humans. By manipulating the agent's persistent state—specifically the Profile Module (BPA-PP) or the Memory Module (BPA-MP)—an attacker…

Will LLM-powered Agents Bias Against Humans? Exploring the Belief-Dependent Vulnerability
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Malicious Algorithm Design Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a safety alignment bypass vulnerability when processing requests for intelligent optimization algorithm design. Unlike direct requests for malicious code (e.g., ransomware), LLM safety guardrails fail to recognize the malicious intent behind mathematical optimization problems (e.g., Online Bin Packing, Traveling Salesman Problem, Flow Shop Scheduling) when applied to harmful contexts (e.g., optimizing botnet traffic routing, scheduling fake review posts for…

Overlooked Safety Vulnerability in LLMs: Malicious Intelligent Optimization Algorithm Request and its Jailbreak
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5, o3+10 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • o3
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Doubao Seed 1.6
  • Grok 3 Mini
  • ERNIE 4.5 Turbo 128K Preview
  • Command A
  • DeepSeek V3
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B Instruct 2507
  • Phi-4

LLM Anthropomorphic Vulnerabilities

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed as autonomous agents exhibit "Anthropomorphic Vulnerability Inheritance" (AVI), a vulnerability class where models internalize human psychological failure modes during training. Attackers can bypass security controls and manipulate agent decision-making by exploiting semantic patterns associated with authority bias, artificial urgency, and social proof. Unlike traditional prompt injection which attempts to override system instructions, AVI exploits the…

The Silicon Psyche: Anthropomorphic Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Haiku 4.5+17 more
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • GPT-5.2 Pro
  • GPT-5.2 Thinking
  • o3-preview
  • o3-mini
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Deep Think
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Mistral Large 3
  • Ministral 3
  • Devstral 2
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Grok 4.1

Single Word Video Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Text-to-Video (T2V) diffusion models are vulnerable to black-box adversarial prompt attacks that degrade output quality regarding semantic fidelity and temporal dynamics. This vulnerability is exploited via the T2VAttack framework, which utilizes two primary vector strategies: T2VAttack-S (Substitution) and T2VAttack-I (Insertion). T2VAttack-S leverages a greedy search to identify key semantic tokens and replaces them with high-similarity synonyms defined in lexical databases (e.g., WordNet)…

T2VAttack: Adversarial Attack on Text-to-Video Diffusion Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

CoT Detector Obfuscation Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based code agents and vulnerability detectors employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning are susceptible to automated adversarial code obfuscation. The vulnerability exists because CoT mechanisms expose the model's decision logic, allowing reinforcement learning frameworks (such as CoTDeceptor) to iteratively refine code transformations based on the detector's own reasoning traces. By optimizing for "reasoning instability" and "hallucination" rather than just syntactic evasion, attackers…

CoTDeceptor: Adversarial Code Obfuscation Against CoT-Enhanced LLM Code Agents
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-5

Dual Stego MLLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Commercial Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) integrated systems are vulnerable to a "Dual Steganography" jailbreak paradigm (referred to as Odysseus). The vulnerability arises from the reliance of safety filters on the assumption that malicious content must be explicitly visible in the input or output modalities (text or image). Attackers can bypass these filters by encoding malicious queries into binary matrices and embedding them into benign-looking images using steganographic encoders…

Odysseus: Jailbreaking Commercial Multimodal LLM-integrated Systems via Dual Steganography
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Pro, Gemini 2.0 Flash+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Grok 3

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.

Discovery and publication are separate: new papers enter a candidate queue, then require human review and explicit approval before publication. Updates follow that review process, not a guaranteed daily publishing schedule. “Last analyzed” is the newest analysis date among published entries; it does not mean that all recent research has been covered.