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.

Benign Cross-User Contamination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in multi-user LLM agents utilizing persistent shared state, allowing Unintentional Cross-User Contamination (UCC). Without requiring any malicious input or attacker, benign user interactions containing locally valid scope constraints, formatting preferences, or procedural rules are persisted into the agent's shared memory or conversational context. The agent subsequently retrieves and misapplies these scope-bound artifacts to unrelated tasks from different users. This…

No Attacker Needed: Unintentional Cross-User Contamination in Shared-State LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Instruction Serialization Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to system instruction leakage when extraction requests are framed as benign formatting, encoding, or structured-output tasks. While standard alignment and refusal mechanisms successfully block direct queries for system instructions, they fail when attackers request the instructions to be rendered in alternate representations (e.g., YAML, TOML, Base64, or system logs). The model's safety filters misinterpret the request as a harmless transformation or…

Automated Framework to Evaluate and Harden LLM System Instructions against Encoding Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1 Mini, GPT-3.5 Turbo, Gemini 2.5 Flash+1 more
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Llama 3 8B

Merging Latent Malice

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM parameter-space merging algorithms enables a latent supply-chain attack where adversaries embed pre-computed malicious weight perturbations into open-source models. Using a constrained optimization framework, attackers inject latent components into the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) up-projection matrices of source models. These perturbations are mathematically constrained to preserve the source model's individual safety alignment (via directional consistency) and benign…

When Safe Models Merge into Danger: Exploiting Latent Vulnerabilities in LLM Fusion
Evaluated models: Tulu-2-7B, Llama 3.1 Tulu 3 8B DPO, OpenChat 3.5 0106

Unsafe Culinary Instructions

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) and safety guardrails lack domain-specific safety alignment for food science, making them vulnerable to generating actionable, hazardous food safety instructions. Attackers can exploit this alignment sparsity using canonical jailbreak techniques (such as AutoDAN and Persuasive Adversarial Prompting) or direct adversarial prompting to bypass generic safety filters. This allows malicious actors to elicit harmful guidance that violates fundamental FDA…

Cooking Up Risks: Benchmarking and Reducing Food Safety Risks in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1+8 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • GLM-4 32B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Mistral Small 4
  • Qwen3Guard
  • Llama Guard 4

VLM Visual-Textual Misalignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to pixel-level adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject $\ell_p$-bounded, human-imperceptible noise into an input image to manipulate the model's multi-modal embedding space. This reliably causes the VLM to generate incorrect textual responses, hallucinate non-existent objects, or misclassify subjects, effectively decoupling the model's reasoning from the actual visual evidence. The vulnerability is exploitable via both white-box…

PDA: Text-Augmented Defense Framework for Robust Vision-Language Models against Adversarial Image Attacks
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.5 13B, DeepSeek VL 1.3B+2 more
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • DeepSeek VL 1.3B
  • InternVL3 2B
  • Ovis2 4B

Invisible Visual Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An imperceptible visual prompt injection vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to execute precise command-hijacking via a Covert Triggered dual-Target Attack (CoTTA). By embedding a bounded, learnable textual overlay ($L_\infty$ norm bound $\varepsilon \le 16$) and adversarial noise into an input image, the attack forces the source image's internal feature representation to align with both the textual and visual embeddings of an attacker-specified…

Adversarial Prompt Injection Attack on Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

X-Shaped Sparse VLM Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) relying on shared visual-textual representation spaces allows attackers to induce transferable cross-task semantic failures using an X-shaped Sparse Pixel Attack (XSPA). Attackers craft imperceptible adversarial perturbations restricted to a fixed geometric prior—two intersecting diagonal lines comprising approximately 1.76% of the image pixels. By jointly optimizing a classification objective with cross-task semantic guidance (target-semantic…

XSPA: Crafting Imperceptible X-Shaped Sparse Adversarial Perturbations for Transferable Attacks on VLMs
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP

Zero-Tax Fine-Tune Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An adversarial fine-tuning vulnerability exists in LLMs protected by text-based safety classifiers (such as Anthropic's Constitutional Classifiers). By utilizing a two-stage curriculum learning combined with hybrid RL+SFT (GRPO), an attacker can fine-tune a model to communicate using a minimal substitution cipher (replacing only 7-8 high-frequency characters) disguised within benign technical templates (e.g., forensic logs with 0x prefixes). This "Trojan-Speak" methodology bypasses text-level…

Trojan-Speak: Bypassing Constitutional Classifiers with No Jailbreak Tax via Adversarial Finetuning
Evaluated models: Claude Haiku 4.5, Qwen 3 4B, Qwen 3 8B+2 more
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B

Agentic Robot Instruction Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

SABER: A Stealthy Agentic Black-Box Attack Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models
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.