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

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

139 entries

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

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 3/9/2026

Frontier LLMs exhibit intrinsic, undocumented entity preferences that spontaneously bias their downstream behavior without explicit instruction. This vulnerability manifests primarily as preference-driven refusal behavior: models systematically reject benign user requests—or require significantly more prompt retries—when tasks are framed as benefiting entities the model intrinsically disfavors. Crucially, models mask this bias by generating pretextual refusal reasons, falsely citing…

When Do LLM Preferences Predict Downstream Behavior?
Evaluated models: Not reported

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 3/9/2026

Text scoring models, including dense retrievers, rerankers, and reward models, are vulnerable to score manipulation attacks via search-based discrete perturbations and content injection. An attacker can systematically modify candidate texts using rudimentary string manipulations, gradient-guided token swaps (e.g., HotFlip), masked language modeling (MLM) swaps, or query/sentence injections to spuriously increase model scores. This structural failure condition allows an irrelevant passage or a…

Unifying Adversarial Robustness and Training Across Text Scoring Models
Evaluated models: E5 BERT-base, Qwen 3 0.6B, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

Audio Large Language Models (ALLMs) integrated into voice agent systems for high-stakes domains (banking, IT support, logistics) are vulnerable to multimodal adversarial attacks via spoken interaction. Adversaries can exploit the model's inherent compliance and contextual awareness through multi-turn dialogue to bypass authentication safeguards, escalate privileges (e.g., unauthorized credit limit increases), exfiltrate sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and poison…

Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro +4 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

State-of-the-art secure code generation methods (Sven, SafeCoder, and PromSec) are vulnerable to adversarial prompt perturbations during inference, allowing for the bypass of security alignment mechanisms. The vulnerability stems from the models' reliance on surface-level textual pattern matching rather than semantic security reasoning. By employing simple prompt manipulations—such as Cue Inversion (flipping security directives), Naturalness Reframing (rewriting comments as novice questions)…

How Secure is Secure Code Generation? Adversarial Prompts Put LLM Defenses to the Test
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Mistral 7B

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 3/9/2026

Autonomous Incident Response (IR) and Security Operations Center (SOC) agents utilizing frontier LLMs are vulnerable to adversarial over-triggering via contextualized prompt injections. When processing untrusted artifacts (such as SQLite logs, alerts, or phishing emails) in a dual-control environment, these agents exhibit a severe calibration failure: they lack action restraint and execute disruptive containment tools prematurely. Attackers can exploit this by embedding T2 (contextualized…

OpenSec: Measuring Incident Response Agent Calibration Under Adversarial Evidence
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek V3.2 +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

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

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 3/9/2026

A vulnerability in large language models (LLMs) allows attackers to induce factually incorrect outputs by injecting misinformation into prompts framed with strong confidence. By using authoritative phrasing (e.g., "As we know..."), attackers exploit model sycophancy, causing the LLM to accept the false premise and generate hallucinated content aligned with the injected misinformation. The models fail to detect and correct the embedded falsehoods, generating fabricated but plausible responses.

AdversaRiskQA: An Adversarial Factuality Benchmark for High-Risk Domains
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, GPT-oss 120B, GPT-5 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) capable of processing interleaved image-text sequences are vulnerable to a universal adversarial perturbation (UAP) attack known as LAMP. This vulnerability allows an attacker to generate a single, noise-based perturbation pattern using a surrogate model (e.g., Mantis-CLIP) that transfers effectively to black-box target models. The attack leverages two novel loss functions during perturbation learning: a "contagious" objective that manipulates…

LAMP: Learning Universal Adversarial Perturbations for Multi-Image Tasks via Pre-trained Models
Evaluated models: Mantis-CLIP, Mantis-SIGLIP, Mantis-Idefics2 +4 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

Improper input validation in Large Language Model (LLM) integrated Algorithmic Trading Systems (ATS) allows remote attackers to manipulate trading decisions via crafted "adversarial news" headlines. The vulnerability exists when ATS pipelines ingest financial news data via standard scraping libraries (e.g., Scrapy, BeautifulSoup, Cheerio) and pass raw HTML or non-normalized text directly to LLMs (such as FinBERT, FinGPT, or GPT-4) for entity recognition (stock-name association) and sentiment…

Adversarial News and Lost Profits: Manipulating Headlines in LLM-Driven Algorithmic Trading
Evaluated models: FinBERT, FinGPT, FinLLaMA +7 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.