Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 8/13/2026

Language Model Security Database

969 research findings · 1102 evaluated models

Latest research findings

969 entries

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

Published 8/1/2023
Analyzed 12/28/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, while employing safety alignment techniques, exhibit vulnerability to "CipherChat" attacks. CipherChat leverages cipher prompts (e.g., ASCII, Unicode, Caesar cipher, Morse code) combined with system role descriptions and few-shot enciphered demonstrations to bypass safety mechanisms trained on natural language. This allows an attacker to elicit unsafe responses from the LLM, effectively evading safety filters. The vulnerability is amplified by the…

Gpt-4 is too smart to be safe: Stealthy chat with llms via cipher
Evaluated models: Claude 2, Falcon-chat-180B, GPT-3.5 +5 more

Source: arXiv

Published 8/1/2023
Analyzed 12/29/2024

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a "self-deception" attack, where carefully crafted prompts induce the model to bypass its internal safety mechanisms and generate outputs that would normally be blocked (e.g., harmful, biased, or illegal content). This occurs by exploiting inconsistencies in the model's internal reasoning processes, making it generate outputs that contradict its own safety policies. The attack does not involve direct code injection or data poisoning but rather…

Self-deception: Reverse penetrating the semantic firewall of large language models
Evaluated models: Not reported

Source: arXiv

Published 8/1/2023
Analyzed 1/26/2025

Large Language Model (LLM)-integrated web applications using Langchain (and potentially similar middleware) are vulnerable to Prompt-to-SQL (P2SQL) injection attacks. Unsanitized user prompts can be crafted to cause the LLM to generate malicious SQL queries, leading to unauthorized database access (read and write operations). This vulnerability bypasses attempts to restrict the LLM through prompt engineering alone.

From prompt injections to sql injection attacks: How protected is your llm-integrated web application?
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, PaLM 2 +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 7/1/2023
Analyzed 12/28/2024

The MASTER KEY framework exploits timing-based characteristics of Large Language Model (LLM) chatbot responses to infer internal defense mechanisms and automatically generate jailbreak prompts. This allows bypassing safety restrictions and eliciting responses violating usage policies, including generation of illegal, harmful, privacy-violating, and adult content. The framework utilizes a three-step process: reverse-engineering defenses via time-based analysis, creating proof-of-concept…

MasterKey: Automated Jailbreak Across Multiple Large Language Model Chatbots
Evaluated models: ERNIE, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

Source: arXiv

Published 7/1/2023
Analyzed 3/4/2025

A vulnerability in multi-modal large language models (LLMs) allows adversaries to bypass safety mechanisms through compositional adversarial attacks. The attack leverages the alignment between vision and language encoders, injecting malicious triggers into benign-looking images. These images, when paired with innocuous prompts, cause the LLM to generate harmful content. The attack requires access only to the vision encoder (e.g., CLIP), not the LLM itself, lowering the barrier to attack.

Jailbreak in pieces: Compositional adversarial attacks on multi-modal language models
Evaluated models: Llama-adapterv2

Source: arXiv

Published 7/1/2023
Analyzed 12/28/2024

Aligned large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a universal and transferable adversarial suffix attack. Appending a specific, automatically generated suffix to a wide range of prompts, even those requesting objectionable content, causes the models to generate harmful or objectionable responses instead of refusing the request. The attack's success rate is significantly higher on GPT-based models.

Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models
Evaluated models: ChatGLM 6B, Claude Instant 1, Claude 2 +12 more

Source: arXiv

Published 6/1/2023
Analyzed 12/29/2024

A prompt injection vulnerability allows attackers to manipulate the behavior of Large Language Model (LLM)-integrated applications by crafting malicious prompts that override the application's intended functionality. Attackers can achieve this by constructing prompts that cause the LLM to interpret malicious payloads as instructions, rather than data, leading to unintended actions such as data leakage, unauthorized LLM usage, or application mimicry. This vulnerability exploits the way user…

Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5

Source: arXiv

Published 6/1/2023
Analyzed 12/29/2024

A vulnerability in vision-integrated Large Language Models (VLMs) allows an attacker to circumvent safety mechanisms through the use of adversarially crafted visual examples. A single, carefully constructed image can universally "jailbreak" the model, causing it to generate harmful content in response to a wide range of subsequent prompts, even those not included in the adversarial example's training data. This vulnerability extends beyond simple misclassification to encompass the execution of…

Visual adversarial examples jailbreak large language models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP, MiniGPT-4

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2023
Analyzed 12/29/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, are vulnerable to prompt engineering attacks that circumvent built-in content restrictions. Attackers can craft malicious prompts, categorized into "pretending," "attention shifting," and "privilege escalation" techniques, to elicit responses containing prohibited content (e.g., instructions for illegal activities, generation of harmful content). The vulnerability stems from the LLM's inability to reliably distinguish…

Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

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.