Security Benchmark: 10 LLMs Tested Against 211 Adversarial Probes

A security researcher conducted a systematic test of 10 different LLMs against 211 adversarial security probes to evaluate how they handle attacks in real-world scenarios.
Test Methodology
The researcher used a standardized setup with temperature 0 and identical API calls for every model. The test included 82 extraction probes (attempting to steal system prompts) and 109 injection probes (attempting to hijack model behavior). A honeypot system prompt loaded with fake PII, SSH keys, and API credentials was used as bait.
Key Findings
- Extraction resistance is mostly solved: Most models are decent at blocking "repeat your system prompt" type attacks. The average across all models is around 85%.
- Injection resistance is not solved: Average is 46.2%, meaning more than half of injection attacks succeed across the board.
- Universal failures: Every single model failed on delimiter attacks, distractor injection, and style injection. 0% resistance on those categories across all 10 models.
- Dead attack patterns: Every model resisted payload splitting and typo evasion at 100%.
Model-Specific Results
- Claude Opus: Scored 72.7% on injection resistance, the best of any model tested. Still means over 1 in 4 injection attacks work.
- GPT-5.4: Has perfect extraction and boundary scores but only 50% injection resistance.
- GPT-5.3 Codex: The model behind Codex CLI that runs code on your machine scored 34.5% on injection. 2 out of 3 injection attempts succeed.
- DeepSeek V3.2: Scored 17.4% on injection, basically no resistance.
- Qwen 3.5 API vs local: Almost identical extraction (81.6% vs 81.7%) but the local version is worse on injection (46.9% vs 29.8%) and much worse on boundary integrity (59.8% vs 44.6%). Running locally doesn't make it less capable at blocking extraction but does make it more vulnerable to injection.
Why Injection Matters
Extraction means someone steals your system prompt - bad, but recoverable. Injection means someone hijacks what your agent does. If your agent has tool access, file system access, or can make API calls, a successful injection can lead to data exfiltration, file deletion, or worse. Right now the best model in the world only blocks 73% of injection attempts.
Full methodology and results are public at agentseal.org/benchmark. The test prompt is also published so anyone can reproduce the results.
📖 Read the full source: r/LocalLLaMA
👀 See Also

AI Chatbots Leaking Real Phone Numbers: The PII Exposure Problem
Chatbots like Gemini, ChatGPT, and Claude are exposing real personal phone numbers due to PII in training data. DeleteMe reports a 400% increase in AI-related privacy requests in seven months.

Malwar: A Vulnerability Scanner for SKILL.md Files Built with Claude Code
A developer has released Malwar, a free tool that scans SKILL.md files for malicious instructions using a 4-layer pipeline including a rule engine, URL crawler, LLM analysis, and threat intel. The tool was built entirely with Claude Code after the developer found concerning patterns like Base64 blobs and instructions to pipe curl output to bash in existing skills.

Privacy Concerns in OpenClaw: Skills, SOUL MD, and Agent Communication
A developer raises privacy concerns about OpenClaw's architecture, specifically around skills having unrestricted access to sensitive data, SOUL MD being writable, and agents sharing information without filters.
Static Analysis of 48 AI-Generated Apps: 90% Had Security Vulnerabilities
A developer scanned 48 public GitHub repos built with Lovable, Bolt, and Replit. 90% had at least one vulnerability. Common issues: auth gaps (44%), SECURITY DEFINER Postgres functions (33%), BOLA/IDOR (25%), and committed secrets (25%).