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

147 entries

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

Published 11/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

The JPRO (Automated Multimodal Jailbreaking via Multi-Agent Collaboration) framework exploits a vulnerability in Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) related to insufficient cross-modal safety alignment and lack of maliciousness sustainability in multi-turn dialogues. The attack leverages a multi-agent system (Planner, Attacker, Modifier, Verifier) to automate the generation of adversarial image-text pairs. By employing hybrid tactics—such as combining role-playing with malicious content…

JPRO: Automated Multimodal Jailbreaking via Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 11/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) capable of processing speech and audio are vulnerable to Speech-Audio Compositional Attacks. This vulnerability exists because current safety mechanisms often rely on text-only transcription or fail to analyze the full acoustic context of an input. By manipulating the composition of audio signals, an attacker can bypass safety filters and elicit harmful responses. The attacks exploit three specific mechanisms: (1) Speech Overlap, where harmful…

Speech-Audio Compositional Attacks on Multimodal LLMs and Their Defense with SALMONN-Guard
Evaluated models: Qwen2-Audio 7B, Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B, Step-Audio 2 Mini Base +6 more

Source: arXiv

Published 11/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak attack vector termed "weak-OOD" (weak Out-of-Distribution), specifically instantiated via the JOCR (Jailbreak via OCR-Aware Embedded Text Perturbation) method. The vulnerability arises from an asymmetry between the model's pre-training phase (which establishes robust OCR capabilities and intent perception) and the safety alignment phase (which lacks generalization to visual anomalies). Attackers can embed malicious text instructions…

Why does weak-OOD help? A Further Step Towards Understanding Jailbreaking VLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 10/20/2025
Analyzed 7/20/2026

The paper describes a reproducible black-box evaluation and attack framework, PolyJailbreak, for multimodal LLMs. It reports that uneven text-versus-vision safety alignment allows jointly optimized text and image inputs to bypass refusal behavior without model internals. The authors attribute this to visual alignment weakening textual refusal representations and to cross-modal fusion making harmful intent harder to separate from benign intent. These are paper-reported findings, not…

Multimodal Safety Is Asymmetric: Cross-Modal Exploits Unlock Black-Box MLLMs Jailbreaks
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.6 7B, Qwen-2.5-VL (7B) +5 more

Source: arXiv

Published 10/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Agentic AI browsers and LLM-powered browser extensions are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via the processing of untrusted web content. The vulnerability arises when the AI agent ingests the Document Object Model (DOM), including hidden elements, HTML comments, metadata, and accessibility labels, into its context window to perform tasks such as page summarization or autonomous navigation. Because the LLM cannot distinguish between system instructions and untrusted external data, an…

In-browser llm-guided fuzzing for real-time prompt injection testing in agentic AI browsers
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 3.1 70B, Llama 3.3 70B

Source: arXiv

Published 10/1/2025
Analyzed 12/8/2025

A vulnerability exists in the self-reflection and introspection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-LLMs that allows attackers to perform black-box adversarial optimization using only textual model responses. This technique, termed "Asking for Directions" (AfD), bypasses the need for access to gradients, logits, or continuous confidence scores. The attacker employs a hill-climbing optimization strategy where they present the target model with two candidate inputs (an…

Black-box Optimization of LLM Outputs by Asking for Directions
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct +8 more

Source: arXiv

Published 10/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Measuring the Security of Mobile LLM Agents under Adversarial Prompts from Untrusted Third-Party Channels
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 10/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

Large Vision-Language Model (LVLM) driven mobile agents, such as Mobile-Agent-E, are vulnerable to a touch-guided visual prompt injection attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to hijack the agent's execution flow via a malicious Android application interface without requiring system-level privileges. The attack leverages "Non-privileged Perception Compromise," where a visual payload is embedded in the application UI and conditionally rendered only during agent-specific interaction…

Practical and Stealthy Touch-Guided Jailbreak Attacks on Deployed Mobile Vision-Language Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Pro Exp 0205, Claude 3.5 Sonnet +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

Large Language Model (LLM)-powered GUI agents exhibit a vulnerability to deceptive interface designs (dark patterns) due to goal-driven optimization and procedural myopia. When executing natural language instructions on web interfaces, these agents consistently prioritize minimizing steps and achieving task completion over user safety or privacy. Agents frequently recognize manipulative elements—such as pre-selected consent checkboxes, hidden costs, or trick questions—in their internal…

Dark Patterns Meet GUI Agents: LLM Agent Susceptibility to Manipulative Interfaces and the Role of Human Oversight
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3 +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs), including proprietary and open-weight state-of-the-art systems, are vulnerable to automated, self-evolving adversarial attacks orchestrated by multi-agent frameworks. The vulnerability exists because current safety alignment strategies (RLHF, static safety filters) fail to generalize against the "SafeEvalAgent" attack vector. In this vector, an "Analyst" agent analyzes model refusals to iteratively refine attack strategies, while a "Specialist" agent grounds these…

SafeEvalAgent: Toward Agentic and Self-Evolving Safety Evaluation of LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-5, GPT-5 Chat Latest, Gemini 2.5 Pro +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.