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

521 entries

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) undergoing alignment via preference learning (such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [RLHF] or Direct Preference Optimization [DPO]) are vulnerable to backdoor attacks through data poisoning. An attacker can inject a small percentage (e.g., 3% to 5%) of poisoned data into the preference dataset $\mathcal{D} = \{(x, y_w, y_l)\}$. The attack embeds a specific trigger string into the user query $x$.

Poisonbench: Assessing large language model vulnerability to data poisoning
Affects: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B +4 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety mechanisms using adversarial prompt translation. The vulnerability stems from the ability to translate garbled adversarial prompts generated by gradient-based attacks into coherent, human-readable prompts that retain their adversarial capability. This allows for the successful transfer of attacks across different LLMs.

Deciphering the Chaos: Enhancing Jailbreak Attacks via Adversarial Prompt Translation

Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) detectors are vulnerable to a realistic adversarial attack ("RAFT") that substitutes words in machine-generated text to evade detection. The attack leverages an auxiliary LLM to select optimal words for substitution based on their impact on the target detector's score, while maintaining grammatical correctness and semantic coherence. This allows the attacker to significantly reduce the probability of detection (up to 99%) while preserving text quality, making the…

Raft: Realistic attacks to fool text detectors
Affects: GPT-2, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 +11 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used in chemical synthesis applications are vulnerable to a novel attack vector, dubbed "SMILES-prompting," which leverages the Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) notation to bypass safety mechanisms and elicit instructions for synthesizing hazardous substances. The attack exploits the LLM's inability to effectively filter or interpret SMILES strings representing dangerous chemicals, leading to the disclosure of synthesis procedures.

SMILES-Prompting: A Novel Approach to LLM Jailbreak Attacks in Chemical Synthesis
Affects: GPT-4o, Llama 3 70B Instruct

Source: arXiv

A denial-of-service (DoS) vulnerability exists in certain Large Language Model (LLM) safeguard implementations due to susceptibility to adversarial prompts. Attackers can inject short, seemingly innocuous adversarial prompts into user prompt templates, causing the safeguard to incorrectly classify legitimate user requests as unsafe and reject them. This allows for a DoS attack against specific users without requiring modification of the LLM itself.

Safeguard is a Double-edged Sword: Denial-of-service Attack on Large Language Models
Affects: GPT-4o Mini, Llama Guard 2 8B, Llama Guard 3 8B +2 more

Source: arXiv

A novel black-box attack framework leverages fuzz testing to automatically generate concise and semantically coherent prompts that bypass safety mechanisms in large language models (LLMs), eliciting harmful or offensive responses. The attack starts with an empty seed pool, utilizes LLM-assisted mutation strategies (Role-play, Contextualization, Expand), and employs a two-level judge module for efficient identification of successful jailbreaks. The attack's effectiveness is demonstrated across…

Effective and Evasive Fuzz Testing-Driven Jailbreaking Attacks against LLMs
Affects: Baichuan 2 7B Chat, Gemini Pro, GPT-3.5 Turbo +4 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel multi-turn jailbreaking attack, termed "RED QUEEN ATTACK." This attack uses multi-turn conversations to conceal malicious intent by framing the user as a protector seeking to prevent harmful actions by others. The LLM, instead of detecting the concealed malicious intent, provides information that facilitates the harmful action under the guise of assisting in prevention efforts.

RED QUEEN: Safeguarding Large Language Models against Concealed Multi-Turn Jailbreaking
Affects: GPT-4o

Source: arXiv

Fine-tuning an open-source Large Language Model (LLM) such as Llama 3.1 8B with a dataset containing harmful content can override existing safety protections. This allows an attacker to increase the model's rate of generating unsafe responses, significantly impacting its trustworthiness and safety. The vulnerability affects the model's ability to consistently adhere to safety guidelines implemented during its initial training.

Overriding Safety protections of Open-source Models
Affects: Llama 3.1 8B

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/28/2024

A single-turn prompt injection attack that bypasses LLM content moderation filters by simulating a multi-turn conversation escalating towards harmful or inappropriate outputs within a single prompt. The attack leverages the LLM's tendency to maintain context and continue established patterns, even when leading to undesirable content.

Well, that escalated quickly: The Single-Turn Crescendo Attack (STCA)
Affects: GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini +4 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack, termed "MathPrompt," which leverages the models' ability to process symbolic mathematics to bypass built-in safety mechanisms. The attack encodes harmful natural language prompts into mathematically formulated problems, causing the LLM to generate unsafe outputs while ostensibly solving a mathematical problem.

Jailbreaking Large Language Models with Symbolic Mathematics
Affects: Claude 3 Haiku, Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Sonnet +10 more

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.