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

54 entries

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

The paper reports a reproducible black-box evaluation showing that vision-language models can recover prohibited intent encoded or implied through ostensibly benign visual inputs. Four tested families—visual ciphers, object replacement, text replacement, and analogy riddles—expose a cross-modality alignment gap: safeguards effective for explicit text may not reliably apply after harmful semantics are reconstructed from images. These are paper-reported results, not independently verified…

Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models Through the Visual Modality
Affects: GPT-5.2, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3 Flash +3 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Infrared Vision-Language Models (IR-VLMs) allows attackers to systematically degrade open-ended semantic understanding—compromising classification, captioning, and Visual Question Answering (VQA)—via a physically deployable Universal Curved-Grid Patch (UCGP). Instead of manipulating explicit text labels, the attack disrupts the clean-category manifold in the model's visual representation space by maximizing orthogonal deviation energy from the principal subspace and forcing…

Revealing Physical-World Semantic Vulnerabilities: Universal Adversarial Patches for Infrared Vision-Language Models
Affects: InstructBLIP

Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to pixel-level adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject $\ell_p$-bounded, human-imperceptible noise into an input image to manipulate the model's multi-modal embedding space. This reliably causes the VLM to generate incorrect textual responses, hallucinate non-existent objects, or misclassify subjects, effectively decoupling the model's reasoning from the actual visual evidence. The vulnerability is exploitable via both white-box…

PDA: Text-Augmented Defense Framework for Robust Vision-Language Models against Adversarial Image Attacks
Affects: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.5 13B, DeepSeek VL 1.3B +2 more

Source: arXiv

An imperceptible visual prompt injection vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to execute precise command-hijacking via a Covert Triggered dual-Target Attack (CoTTA). By embedding a bounded, learnable textual overlay ($L_\infty$ norm bound $\varepsilon \le 16$) and adversarial noise into an input image, the attack forces the source image's internal feature representation to align with both the textual and visual embeddings of an attacker-specified…

Adversarial Prompt Injection Attack on Multimodal Large Language Models
Affects: GPT-4o, GPT-5

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
Affects: DeepSeek-V3 671B, Llama 4 17B, Mistral 7B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a highly transferable, black-box adversarial image attack known as the Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Attack (MPCAttack). Attackers can craft imperceptible visual perturbations by jointly aggregating and optimizing semantic feature representations extracted from surrogate models across three distinct learning paradigms: cross-modal alignment (e.g., CLIP), multi-modal understanding (e.g., InternVL3), and visual self-supervised learning…

Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Adversarial Attack Against Multi-Modal Large Language Models
Affects: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, InternVL3 8B, LLaVA 1.5 7B +3 more

Source: arXiv

LLaVA-v1.5-7B, when deployed as a vision-language autonomous agent, is highly vulnerable to adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject imperceptibly modified images into a web environment (such as an e-commerce storefront). When the VLM agent captures a screenshot containing the perturbed image, the visual noise forces the model to misclassify the scene and output incorrect, structured JSON actions. This allows an attacker to hijack the agent's task execution, bypassing the user's…

Adversarial attacks against Modern Vision-Language Models
Affects: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, LLaVA 1.5 7B

Source: arXiv

A "Visual Confused Deputy" vulnerability exists in Computer-Using Agents (CUAs) that rely on visual perception to execute coordinate-based GUI actions (e.g., click(x,y)). Because the agent's understanding of the system state is entirely dependent on the screenshot provided by the runtime, a compromised runtime or tool can intercept and alter the screenshot pixels before forwarding them to the LLM. By visually swapping the locations of benign and privileged UI elements, an attacker can trick…

Visual Confused Deputy: Exploiting and Defending Perception Failures in Computer-Using Agents
Affects: Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) relying on shared visual-textual representation spaces allows attackers to induce transferable cross-task semantic failures using an X-shaped Sparse Pixel Attack (XSPA). Attackers craft imperceptible adversarial perturbations restricted to a fixed geometric prior—two intersecting diagonal lines comprising approximately 1.76% of the image pixels. By jointly optimizing a classification objective with cross-task semantic guidance (target-semantic…

XSPA: Crafting Imperceptible X-Shaped Sparse Adversarial Perturbations for Transferable Attacks on VLMs
Affects: InstructBLIP

Source: arXiv

The paper evaluates a reproducible indirect prompt injection issue in ReAct-style LLM agents: untrusted retrieved content can be interpreted as instructions and redirect the agent toward unauthorized tool calls. The authors report that successful attacks correlate with concentrated attention on injected content and evaluate defenses using InjectAgent, AgentDojo, TrojanTools, and a visual prompt-injection benchmark. These are paper-reported findings, not independently verified facts.

ICON: Indirect Prompt Injection Defense for Agents based on Inference-Time Correction
Affects: Qwen 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 8B +3 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.