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.

Multi-Agent Prompt Permutation Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems allows for a permutation-invariant adversarial prompt attack. By strategically partitioning adversarial prompts and routing them through a network topology, an attacker can bypass distributed safety mechanisms, even those with token bandwidth limitations and asynchronous message delivery. The attack optimizes prompt propagation as a maximum-flow minimum-cost problem, maximizing success while minimizing detection.

Agents Under Siege: Breaking Pragmatic Multi-Agent LLM Systems with Optimized Prompt Attacks
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill, Gemma 2 9B, Llama 2 7B+7 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama Guard
  • Llama Guard 2 8B
  • Llama Guard 3 1B
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Prompt Guard

Recommender Memory Update Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Improper input validation in the memory module of Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agentic Recommender Systems (RS) allows remote attackers to perform indirect prompt injection via adversarial item descriptions. By utilizing the "DrunkAgent" framework, an attacker can embed semantic triggers and control characters (such as segmentation tokens and escape characters) into product descriptions. These injections manipulate the agent's memory update mechanism during agent-environment…

DrunkAgent: Stealthy Memory Corruption in LLM-Powered Recommender Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4, o1, Llama 3 8B

Schema-Guided LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) with structured output APIs (e.g., using JSON Schema) are vulnerable to Constrained Decoding Attacks (CDAs). CDAs exploit the control plane of the LLM's decoding process by embedding malicious intent within the schema-level grammar rules, bypassing safety mechanisms that primarily focus on input prompts. The attack manipulates the allowed output space, forcing the LLM to generate harmful content despite a benign input prompt. One instance of a CDA is the Chain Enum…

Output Constraints as Attack Surface: Exploiting Structured Generation to Bypass LLM Safety Mechanisms
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemma 2 9B, GPT-4o+5 more
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral Nemo
  • Phi 3.5 MoE
  • Qwen 2.5 32B

Zero-Shot Embedding Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A Universal Zero-shot Embedding Inversion vulnerability exists in vector databases and embedding-based retrieval systems. The flaw allows an attacker to reconstruct original plaintext documents from their vector embeddings without requiring access to the original training data or training an embedding-specific inversion model. The attack, identified as "ZSinvert," leverages a multi-stage adversarial decoding process: (1) a cosine-similarity guided beam search using a Large Language Model (LLM)…

Universal Zero-shot Embedding Inversion
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 5B

Segmented Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) incorporating safety filters are vulnerable to a "Prompt, Divide, and Conquer" attack. This attack segments a malicious prompt into smaller, seemingly benign parts, processes these segments in parallel across multiple LLMs, and then reassembles the results to generate malicious code, bypassing the safety filters. The attack's success relies on the iterative refinement of initially abstract function descriptions into concrete implementations. Individual LLM safety…

Prompt, Divide, and Conquer: Bypassing Large Language Model Safety Filters via Segmented and Distributed Prompt Processing
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5 Pro+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini

Multimodal Narrative Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a novel attack vector leveraging narrative-driven visual storytelling and role immersion to circumvent built-in safety mechanisms. The attack, termed MIRAGE, decomposes harmful queries into environment, character, and activity triplets, generating a sequence of images and text prompts that guide the MLLM through a deceptive narrative, ultimately eliciting harmful responses. The attack successfully exploits the MLLM's cross-modal…

MIRAGE: Multimodal Immersive Reasoning and Guided Exploration for Red-Team Jailbreak Attacks
Evaluated models: Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4V, Grok 2 Vision+3 more
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • GPT-4V
  • Grok 2 Vision
  • InternVL
  • LLaVA Mistral
  • Qwen VL

Implicit Prompt Code Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used for code generation are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack that leverages implicit malicious prompts. The attack exploits the fact that existing safety mechanisms primarily rely on explicit malicious intent within the prompt instructions. By embedding malicious intent implicitly within a benign-appearing commit message accompanying a code request (e.g., in a simulated software evolution scenario), the attacker can bypass the LLM's safety filters and induce…

Smoke and Mirrors: Jailbreaking LLM-based Code Generation via Implicit Malicious Prompts
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Code Llama 13B Instruct, DeepSeek Coder 7B+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Code Llama 13B Instruct
  • DeepSeek Coder 7B
  • DeepSeek V3
  • GPT-4
  • Qwen Plus

Metaphor-Based T2I Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in text-to-image (T2I) models allows bypassing safety filters through the use of metaphor-based adversarial prompts. These prompts, crafted using LLMs, indirectly convey sensitive content, exploiting the model's ability to infer meaning from figurative language while circumventing explicit keyword filters and model editing strategies.

Metaphor-based Jailbreaking Attacks on Text-to-Image Models
Evaluated models: DALL-E 3, Flux, Llama 3 8B Instruct+3 more
  • DALL-E 3
  • Flux
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Midjourney
  • Stable Diffusion v1.4
  • Stable Diffusion XL

Cross-Batch Interference

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed using "Batch Prompting" strategies—where multiple distinct user queries are concatenated and processed in a single inference pass to reduce computational costs—are vulnerable to Cross-Query Prompt Injection. When a batch contains a mixture of benign queries and a single malicious query, the instructions within the malicious query (e.g., "apply this rule to every answer") bleed over the context window. This causes the model to apply the adversary's…

Efficient but Vulnerable: Benchmarking and Defending LLM Batch Prompting Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1

Embedding Inversion Privacy Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems employing standard dense embedding models (e.g., Sentence-T5, SimCSE-BERT, RoBERTa, MPNet) for End-Cloud collaboration are vulnerable to Embedding Inversion Attacks (EIA). While embeddings are vector representations designed to be human-unrecognizable, they retain sufficient semantic information to allow an attacker with access to the vectors (e.g., a malicious or compromised cloud provider) to reconstruct the original sensitive plaintext input.

Safeguarding LLM Embeddings in End-Cloud Collaboration via Entropy-Driven Perturbation
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.