Llama 4 Maverick Security Report

April 2025 • Model Security & Safety Evaluation

Released
April 5, 2025

Compare Model Performance

Want to see how Llama 4 Maverick stacks up against other models? Use our comparison tool to analyze security metrics side by side.

Compare Models →

Meta's Llama 4 Maverick launched on April 5, 2025, as a high-performance multimodal language model, enhancing Meta's product line with advanced capabilities in image and text understanding. Available through Meta, HuggingFace, Openrouter, and Together AI, this model sets a new standard in AI applications by outperforming competitors like GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash.

As Llama 4 Maverick gains traction across various platforms, this analysis aims to assess its security features and identify areas for improvement in safeguarding user data.

Company Logo

"Llama 4 Maverick is the best-in-class multimodal model, exceeding comparable models like GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 on coding, reasoning, multilingual, long-context, and image benchmarks, and it's competitive with the much larger DeepSeek v3.1 on coding and reasoning."Meta AI Team

About This Evaluation

Red Teaming

Open-source AI red teaming covering 50+ vulnerability types.

Learn more

Quick Start

Run your own security evaluation with our step-by-step guide.

View guide

Documentation

Learn more about our AI red teaming framework.

Read docs
About the Model
Let's take a closer look at the model before diving into our security findings.

Core Capabilities

Input Support

text, image

Output Type

text

Token Limits

1,048,576 input • 8,000 output

Use Cases

Primary Focus

general assistant, chat

Key Applications

• image understanding • creative writing

Availability

Access Points

• Meta • HuggingFace • Openrouter • Together AI

Knowledge Cutoff

August 2024

Security Test Results

Comprehensive analysis across 39 test categories, sorted by severity and pass rate:

Performance Overview

Our security testing suite demonstrates varying levels of compliance across different categories. The Llama 4 Maverick model's overall pass rate distribution shows 3 critical, 5 high, 15 medium, and 16 low severity findings.

Top performing areas include ASCII Smuggling (100%), Child Exploitation (66.67%), Sexual Crime Content (62.22%). These categories show satisfactory security practices.

Areas requiring attention include Religious Bias (0%), Political Bias (0%), Pliny Prompt Injections (0%). These categories present opportunities for improvement in security measures.

Showing 39 of 39 tests
Type
Severity
Description
Pass Rate
Low
Tests vulnerability to Unicode tag-based instruction smuggling attacks
100%
Low
Tests handling of malicious prompts from the BeaverTails dataset
31.11%
Medium
Tests for unauthorized contractual commitments and legal exposure
4.44%
Medium
Tests prompt injection attacks from Meta's CyberSecEval dataset
28.89%
Medium
Tests for training data leaks through repetitive pattern exploitation that causes model divergence
0%
Medium
Tests for unauthorized actions beyond defined system boundaries
6.67%
Medium
Tests for fabrication of false or misleading information
2.22%
High
Tests handling of WMD-related content
44.44%
Critical
Tests handling of child exploitation content
66.67%
Low
Tests handling of intellectual property violations
8.89%
Low
Tests handling of cybercrime-related content
28.89%
Low
Tests creation of malicious code
24.44%
Medium
Tests handling of graphic or violent content
22.22%
Low
Tests handling of harassment and bullying content
17.78%
Critical
Tests handling of hate speech and discriminatory content
20%
Medium
Tests handling of general illegal activities
20%
Medium
Tests handling of illegal drug-related content
44.44%
Low
Tests handling of methamphetamine-related content
31.11%
Medium
Tests handling of weapons-related content
48.89%
Low
Tests handling of personal attacks and insults
13.33%
Medium
Tests handling of IP theft and violations
8.89%
Medium
Tests handling of false information campaigns
8.89%
Medium
Tests handling of non-violent criminal content
37.78%
Low
Tests handling of profane or inappropriate language
8.89%
Low
Tests handling of extremist content and recruitment
37.78%
Critical
Tests handling of self-harm and suicide content
42.22%
High
Tests handling of sexual crime content
62.22%
Medium
Tests handling of explicit sexual content
40%
Medium
Tests handling of unauthorized professional advice
17.78%
Low
Tests handling of dangerous activity instructions
31.11%
High
Tests handling of violent crime content
53.33%
Low
Tests handling of Improvised Explosive Devices
57.78%
High
Tests for unauthorized resource usage and purpose deviation
0%
Low
Tests for unauthorized impersonation of entities
0%
Low
Tests for overreliance on system assumptions
0%
High
Tests for direct PII exposure vulnerabilities
24.44%
Medium
Tests handling of Pliny prompt injections
0%
Low
Tests handling of political content and bias
0%
Low
Tests handling of religious content and bias
0%
Total Tests: 39
Critical: 3High: 5Medium: 15Low: 16

Our evaluation included over 1,600 test probes across four security categories. The analysis revealed both strengths and areas requiring additional safety measures:

Security & Access Control

14% Pass Rate

Protection against unauthorized access, data exposure, and system vulnerabilities

124 failed probes

Compliance & Legal

33% Pass Rate

Assessment of compliance with legal requirements and prevention of illegal content

484 failed probes

Trust & Safety

30% Pass Rate

Prevention of harmful content and protection of user safety

352 failed probes

Brand

2% Pass Rate

Protection of brand integrity and prevention of misuse

352 failed probes
Standards
Security analysis of Llama 4 Maverick against industry-standard frameworks for Large Language Models

OWASP Top 10 for LLMs (2025) and MITRE ATLAS represent the primary security assessment frameworks for large language models. OWASP focuses on critical deployment risks, while ATLAS maps adversarial techniques against AI systems, similar to the MITRE ATT&CK framework for traditional systems.

The Llama 4 Maverick model's evaluation against these frameworks reveals several areas requiring attention across 6 identified findings. While Llama 4 Maverick has no critical vulnerabilities, high-severity issues should be prioritized for improvement.

High-severity concerns include LLM02: Sensitive Information Disclosure.

MITRE ATLAS identified Jailbreak as high-severity concerns.

OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025 - Llama 4 Maverick Assessment

High Risk Areas

LLM02: Sensitive Information Disclosure

Moderate Risk Areas

LLM06: Excessive Agency
LLM09: Misinformation

MITRE ATLAS Findings for Llama 4 Maverick

High Severity Findings

Jailbreak

Moderate Severity Findings

Prompt Injections
Erode ML Model Integrity
Statistical Analysis
Comprehensive breakdown of test results across 39 security test categories

Total Test Categories

39

Average Pass Rate

25.5%

Critical Issues

3

Severity Distribution

critical3 tests
high5 tests
medium15 tests
low16 tests

Performance Summary

Security & Access Control

Pass Rate14.0%

Compliance & Legal

Pass Rate33.0%

Trust & Safety

Pass Rate30.0%

Brand

Pass Rate2.0%

Worst Performing Tests

Divergent Repetition

Tests for training data leaks through repetitive pattern exploitation that causes model divergence

0%

Overreliance

Tests for overreliance on system assumptions

0%

Resource Hijacking

Tests for unauthorized resource usage and purpose deviation

0%

Entity Impersonation

Tests for unauthorized impersonation of entities

0%

Pliny Prompt Injections

Tests handling of Pliny prompt injections

0%

Best Performing Tests

ASCII Smuggling

Tests vulnerability to Unicode tag-based instruction smuggling attacks

100%

Child Exploitation

Tests handling of child exploitation content

66.67%

Sexual Crime Content

Tests handling of sexual crime content

62.22%

Improvised Explosive Devices

Tests handling of Improvised Explosive Devices

57.78%

Violent Crime Content

Tests handling of violent crime content

53.33%

Key Observations

Strengths

  • Strong performance in handling ASCII Smuggling (100% pass rate)
  • Effective prevention in Child Exploitation (66.67%)
  • Consistent performance across critical security tests

Areas for Improvement

  • Low pass rate (0%) for Divergent Repetition
  • 3 critical severity issues identified
  • Average pass rate of 25.5% indicates room for improvement