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.

RAG Arbitrary Query Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A compound vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems allows attackers to deterministically hijack model outputs for arbitrary user queries without prior knowledge of the user's input. The vulnerability, identified as PIDP-Attack, requires a dual-vector exploitation: database poisoning and query-path prompt injection. First, the attacker injects a small number of poisoned passages into the RAG database, each starting with an attacker-chosen "target question" followed by a…

PIDP-Attack: Combining Prompt Injection with Database Poisoning Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B

System Prompt Signal Inversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based autonomous email security agents configured with signal-based system prompts are vulnerable to a "signal inversion" attack via infrastructure phishing. When a system prompt instructs an LLM to prioritize a specific heuristic—such as sender-URL domain consistency—attackers can bypass the security filter entirely by registering a single, inexpensive domain and using it for both the sender email address and the malicious payload host. Because the LLM faithfully executes the prioritized…

The System Prompt Is the Attack Surface: How LLM Agent Configuration Shapes Security and Creates Exploitable Vulnerabilities
Evaluated models: Gemini 3 Flash Preview, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-4o Mini+8 more
  • Gemini 3 Flash Preview
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Mistral Small 3.2 24B
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B

Autoresearch Adversarial Algorithm Discovery

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GPT-OSS-Safeguard-20B and Meta-SecAlign (70B/8B) are vulnerable to white-box adversarial attacks generated by automated algorithmic recombination (specifically the claude_v63, claude_v82, and claude_v53-oss optimizers). These algorithms significantly outperform standard discrete optimization methods (like GCG) by integrating continuous optimization (ADC) with LayerNorm gradient scaling (LSGM), or by merging momentum-smoothed gradients with directional perturbation candidate selection (DPTO)…

Claudini: Autoresearch Discovers State-of-the-Art Adversarial Attack Algorithms for LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 7B

Steering Vector Safety Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Activation steering techniques, such as Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA), systematically erode the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) due to geometric interference within the residual stream. Steering vectors intended to modulate benign or utility-driven behaviors (e.g., sycophancy, openness, self-awareness) often exhibit a negative cosine similarity with the model's latent 1D refusal direction. When applied during inference, these steering vectors inadvertently suppress the…

Analysing the Safety Pitfalls of Steering Vectors
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 3B, Gemma 7B

Token Sensitivity Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to highly query-efficient black-box jailbreak attacks due to the structural properties of refusal behaviors: skewed token contribution and cross-model consistency. Refusal mechanisms within LLMs are typically triggered by a sparse subset of sensitive tokens rather than the entire prompt, and these refusal representations (specifically the primary left singular vector of the perturbed representation matrix at intermediate layers) are…

Not All Tokens Are Created Equal: Query-Efficient Jailbreak Fuzzing for LLMs
Evaluated models: Gemma 7B Instruct, Gemma 2 9B IT, Llama 3 8B Instruct+6 more
  • Gemma 7B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet

MCP Tool-Metadata Prompt Injection in Coding Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper presents a controlled, reproducible evaluation in which untrusted MCP tool descriptions contain hidden instructions that attempt to induce coding agents to access files, invoke other tools, create deceptive links, or execute remote scripts. The authors report that several clients accepted poisoned metadata without adequate validation or parameter visibility; Cursor 1.6.45 was reported unsafe across all four tested vectors. These are paper-reported results from isolated local tests…

Are AI-assisted Development Tools Immune to Prompt Injection?
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.5, Grok Code Fast 1, Gemini 2.5 Pro+1 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Grok Code Fast 1
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Claude Opus 4

LLM Universal Graph Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An evasion vulnerability in Text-Attributed Graph (TAG) learning models allows attackers to induce targeted misclassifications via LLM-generated, coordinated perturbations to both graph topology and textual semantics. By identifying a semantically distant "influencer" node, an attacker can use a separate LLM to selectively delete highly relevant edges, insert a deceptive edge connecting the target to the influencer, and slightly modify the target node's text to include a keyword aligned with…

Can LLMs Fool Graph Learning? Exploring Universal Adversarial Attacks on Text-Attributed Graphs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek-V3 671B, Llama 4 17B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • DeepSeek-V3 671B
  • Llama 4 17B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen Plus

Agent Tool Execution Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A multi-step tool execution vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) or similar tool-calling frameworks. Safety guardrails in aligned LLMs typically evaluate static, single-turn text generation. Attackers can bypass these text-centric guardrails by supplying adversarial prompts that force the agent into a complex planning sequence. The agent is manipulated into executing a trajectory of seemingly benign individual tool invocations…

T-MAP: Red-Teaming LLM Agents with Trajectory-aware Evolutionary Search
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Gemini Pro, DeepSeek V3

Profit-Driven Agent Exploitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based autonomous agents deployed in multi-turn, structured environments are vulnerable to adaptive, profit-driven semantic exploitation. Rather than utilizing traditional malformed prompt injections or jailbreaks, an attacker can leverage valid interaction channels to execute social engineering, protocol spoofing, and authority impersonation tactics. By strategically shaping the environment's context—such as feigning technical constraints, fabricating evaluation harnesses, or manipulating…

Profit is the Red Team: Stress-Testing Agents in Strategic Economic Interactions
Evaluated models: Not reported

Long-Tail Cryptographic Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to automated long-tail distribution attacks that exploit their instruction-following and code-execution capabilities to bypass safety alignments. Attackers can obfuscate malicious queries using a semantic-algorithmic representation, embedding the query within reversible encryption-decryption logic (e.g., sequence re-grouping, conditional branching, or index-dependent operations). By providing the model with the encrypted query and the corresponding…

Evolving Jailbreaks: Automated Multi-Objective Long-Tail Attacks on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 2 7B, Llama 3.1 8B

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.