Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Updated 7/21/2026, database is current

Language Model Security Database

959 research findings · 1077 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

9 entries

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

Semantic caching mechanisms in LLM applications are vulnerable to cross-tenant cache key collision attacks (CacheAttack) due to the inherent mathematical conflict between locality-preserving fuzzy hashing and cryptographic collision resistance (the avalanche effect). An attacker can leverage gradient-based search algorithms to optimize an adversarial discrete suffix that, when appended to a malicious prompt, forces its output embedding vector to collide with the embedding of a targeted benign…

From Similarity to Vulnerability: Key Collision Attack on LLM Semantic Caching
Affects: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, DeepSeek R1

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/9/2025

Large Language Model (LLM) inference APIs that expose top-k logits or log-probabilities are vulnerable to model extraction and cloning. An attacker can execute a two-stage attack to replicate the proprietary model without access to weights, gradients, or training data. First, by submitting fewer than 10,000 random queries and aggregating the returned unrounded logits, the attacker recovers the model's output projection matrix using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). Second, the attacker…

Clone What You Can't Steal: Black-Box LLM Replication via Logit Leakage and Distillation
Affects: GPT-3.5, Mistral 7B

Source: arXiv

A Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability exists in LLM-enabled agentic systems that execute multi-step plans involving sequential tool calls. The vulnerability arises because plans are not executed atomically. An agent may perform a "check" operation (e.g., reading a file, checking a permission) in one tool call, and a subsequent "use" operation (e.g., writing to the file, performing a privileged action) in another tool call. A temporal gap between these calls, often used for LLM…

Mind the Gap: Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use Vulnerabilities in LLM-Enabled Agents
Affects: GPT-4o

Source: arXiv

End-to-end Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) are vulnerable to AudioJailbreak, a novel attack that appends adversarial audio perturbations ("jailbreak audios") to user prompts. These perturbations, even when applied asynchronously and without alignment to the user's speech, can manipulate the LALM's response to generate adversary-desired outputs that bypass safety mechanisms. The attack achieves universality by employing a single perturbation effective across different prompts and robustness…

AudioJailbreak: Jailbreak Attacks against End-to-End Large Audio-Language Models
Affects: BLSP, FunAudioLLM, GPT-4o +9 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) are vulnerable to a stealthy adversarial jailbreak attack, AdvWave, which leverages a dual-phase optimization to overcome gradient shattering caused by audio discretization. The attack crafts adversarial audio by adding perceptually realistic environmental noise, making it difficult to detect. The attack also dynamically adapts the adversarial target based on the LALM's response patterns.

AdvWave: Stealthy Adversarial Jailbreak Attack against Large Audio-Language Models
Affects: GPT-4o, Llama Omni, Qwen 2 Audio +1 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

A bimodal adversarial attack, PBI-Attack, can manipulate Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) into generating toxic or harmful content by iteratively optimizing both textual and visual inputs in a black-box setting. The attack leverages a surrogate LVLM to inject malicious features from a harmful corpus into a benign image, then iteratively refines both image and text perturbations to maximize the toxicity of the model’s output as measured by a toxicity detection model (Perspective API or…

BAMBA: A Bimodal Adversarial Multi-Round Black-Box Jailbreak Attacker for LVLMs
Affects: GPT-4, InstructBLIP, MiniGPT-4 +1 more

Source: arXiv

Embodied Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to manipulation via voice-based interactions, leading to the execution of harmful physical actions. Attacks exploit three vulnerabilities: (1) cascading LLM jailbreaks resulting in malicious robotic commands; (2) misalignment between linguistic outputs (verbal refusal) and physical actions (command execution); and (3) conceptual deception, where seemingly benign instructions lead to harmful outcomes due to incomplete world knowledge within…

BadRobot: Manipulating Embodied LLMs in the Physical World
Affects: BERT, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo +2 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to efficient adversarial attacks using Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) on a continuously relaxed input prompt. This attack bypasses existing alignment methods by crafting adversarial prompts that induce the model to produce undesired or harmful outputs, significantly faster than previous state-of-the-art discrete optimization methods. The effectiveness stems from carefully controlling the error introduced by the continuous relaxation of the discrete…

Attacking large language models with projected gradient descent
Affects: Falcon 7B, Falcon 7B Instruct, Vicuna 7B v1.3

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/28/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 and Vicuna exhibit a vulnerability where specific layers (e.g., layer 3 in Llama2-13B, layer 1 in Llama2-7B and Vicuna-13B) overfit to harmful prompts, resulting in a disproportionate influence on the model's output for such prompts. This overfitting creates a narrow "safety" mechanism easily bypassed by adversarial prompts designed to avoid triggering these specific layers. Additionally, a single neuron (e.g., neuron 2100 in Llama2 and Vicuna)…

Causality analysis for evaluating the security of large language models
Affects: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-NeoX, Llama 2-13B-chat-hf +2 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.