Language Model Security Database

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where inducing "drunk language" behavior—simulating the text of an intoxicated human—bypasses safety guardrails and contextual privacy protections. Attackers can exploit this anthropomorphic flaw through inference-time persona prompting or lightweight post-training (causal fine-tuning or reinforcement learning on drunk text corpora). By forcing the model to adopt a stylistic and semantic framework associated with impaired human…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing safety mechanisms based on supervised fine-tuning and preference alignment exhibit a vulnerability to "steering" attacks. Maliciously crafted prompts or input manipulations can exploit representation vectors within the model to either bypass censorship ("refusal-compliance vector") or suppress the model's reasoning process ("thought suppression vector"), resulting in the generation of unintended or harmful outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated…

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on the CyberLLMInstruct dataset results in a critical degradation of safety alignment and refusal mechanisms. While the dataset comprises "pseudo-malicious" content (educational descriptions of malware, phishing, and exploits without executable payloads), the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) process on this corpus causes the models to generalize this instruction-following behavior to actual malicious requests. This effectively bypasses safety guardrails…

Standard Large Language Model (LLM) unlearning techniques, specifically Negative Preference Optimization (NPO), Gradient Difference (GradDiff), and Representation Misdirection for Unlearning (RMU), fail to sufficiently flatten the loss landscape surrounding the "forgotten" weights. This sharp loss landscape allows for a "Relearning Attack," wherein an attacker can fully restore the unlearned capabilities (such as hazardous knowledge, sensitive data, or copyrighted material) by performing…

A Cross-Prompt Injection Attack (XPIA) can be amplified by appending a Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) suffix to the malicious injection. This increases the likelihood that a Large Language Model (LLM) will execute the injected instruction, even in the presence of a user's primary instruction, leading to data exfiltration. The success rate of the attack depends on the LLM's complexity; medium-complexity models show increased vulnerability.