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.

Shuffle Inconsistency Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit a vulnerability where shuffling the order of words in text prompts or patches in image prompts can bypass their safety mechanisms, despite the model still understanding the intent of the shuffled input. This "Shuffle Inconsistency" allows attackers to elicit harmful responses by submitting shuffled harmful prompts that would otherwise be blocked.

Jailbreaking Multimodal Large Language Models via Shuffle Inconsistency
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o+6 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • InternVL 2 4B
  • InternVL 2 8B
  • InternVL 2 26B
  • MiniGPT-4
  • Qwen VL Max
  • VLGuard

Confounder Gadgets Reroute LLMs

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) routing systems (control planes) that allows for the manipulation of inference flow via adversarial input sequences. LLM routers, which dynamically direct user queries to either "weak" (cheaper) or "strong" (expensive) models based on predicted query complexity, can be bypassed by appending specific, pre-optimized token sequences known as "confounder gadgets." These gadgets artificially inflate the router's complexity score for an input…

Rerouting llm routers
Evaluated models: Not reported

Cybersecurity Obfuscation Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A multi-step prompt injection vulnerability allows attackers to bypass Large Language Model (LLM) safety guardrails by combining prompt obfuscation with task decomposition. The attack methodology, identified as part of the CySecBench research, employs a "Word Reversal" technique where every fifth word in the malicious input is reversed to evade initial keyword detection. This obfuscated input is then embedded within a benign educational context, specifically instructing the model to act as a…

CySecBench: Generative AI-based CyberSecurity-focused Prompt Dataset for Benchmarking Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Strategic Ranking Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) based search engines utilizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) are vulnerable to ranking manipulation attacks via indirect prompt injection. Adversaries can embed optimized adversarial triggers or crafted semantic patterns within external webpage content. When these manipulated documents are retrieved and integrated into the LLM's context window alongside a user query, the adversarial content disrupts the model's contextual understanding. This results in the LLM…

Dynamics of adversarial attacks on large language model-based search engines
Evaluated models: Not reported

Evolutionary LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

This vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass the safety mechanisms of Large Language Models (LLMs) by using an evolutionary algorithm to generate effective jailbreak prompts. The algorithm leverages the LLM's capabilities to iteratively refine prompts, increasing the likelihood of eliciting harmful responses to otherwise disallowed queries.

LLM-Virus: Evolutionary Jailbreak Attack on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 2, Claude 3.5 Haiku, GPT-3.5 Turbo+5 more
  • Claude 2
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Llama 3.1 8B

Diffusion-Driven LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

DiffusionAttacker exploits a vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allowing manipulation of prompts to elicit harmful responses, even when the model incorporates safety mechanisms. The attack leverages a sequence-to-sequence diffusion model to rewrite harmful prompts, making them appear harmless to the LLM's internal representation while preserving their original semantic meaning. This bypasses safety filters and elicits undesired outputs.

DiffusionAttacker: Diffusion-Driven Prompt Manipulation for LLM Jailbreak
Evaluated models: Alpaca 7B, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-3.5 Turbo+4 more
  • Alpaca 7B
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B
  • Vicuna 7B

LLM Relevance Score Inflation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based relevance assessment frameworks, such as the Umbrela system, are vulnerable to evaluation subversion and artificial score inflation due to evaluation circularity and LLM "narcissism" (an LLM's inherent bias toward favoring LLM-generated outputs). When an information retrieval system integrates an LLM into its ranking pipeline—such as using it as a final-stage re-ranker—the automated LLM-as-a-judge evaluator assigns artificially inflated scores that fail to correlate with actual human…

LLM-based relevance assessment still can't replace human relevance assessment
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o

Embodied AI Policy Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based planning modules in embodied AI systems are vulnerable to Policy Executable (POEX) jailbreak attacks. Attackers can inject carefully crafted adversarial suffixes into user instructions, causing the LLM to generate and execute harmful policies in both simulated and real-world environments. The attacks bypass safety mechanisms by using optimized, human-readable suffixes that evade perplexity-based detection.

POEX: Policy Executable Embodied AI Jailbreak Attacks
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4, GPT-4 Turbo+9 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2
  • Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
  • Phi-3
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

Multimodal LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A hybrid multimodal jailbreaking attack, dubbed JMLLM, exploits vulnerabilities in 13 popular large language models (LLMs) across text, image, and speech modalities. The attack leverages alternating translation, word encryption, feature collapse in images, and harmful text injection to bypass safety mechanisms and elicit harmful responses. Success rates vary across LLMs and modalities, with some models exhibiting significantly higher vulnerability than others.

Divide and Conquer: A Hybrid Strategy Defeats Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 1, Claude 2, ERNIE 3.5 Turbo+10 more
  • Claude 1
  • Claude 2
  • ERNIE 3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Llama 3.1 405B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • Qwen VL Max

Contextual Adversarial Prompts

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to human-readable adversarial prompts crafted using situational context derived from movie scripts. These prompts, which combine a malicious prompt, a seemingly innocuous adversarial insertion, and relevant contextual information, can bypass LLMs' safety mechanisms and elicit harmful responses. The technique leverages the LLM's ability to understand context and generate responses consistent with that context to mask the malicious intent. The…

Human-Readable Adversarial Prompts: An Investigation into LLM Vulnerabilities Using Situational Context
Evaluated models: Flan-t5 Large, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemma 2B IT+16 more
  • Flan-t5 Large
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemma 2B IT
  • Gemma 7B
  • Gemma 7B IT
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Meta-llama-3-8B
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2
  • Mistral-7B-v0.1
  • Mistral-8x7B-instruct-v0.1
  • Phi-1.5
  • Phi-3-mini-128k-instruct
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

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.