An Empirical Evaluation of Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models Across Multilingual and Obfuscated Attack Scenarios
On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly evolved, transforming industries by automating complex tasks and generating human-like content. However, as their adoption accelerates, prompt injection vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent. Malicious actors exploit these weaknesses to generate phishing emails, deceptive websites, nd malware, posing serious security risks. This paper presents an empirical evaluation of six state-of-the-art LLMs (DeepSeek, GPT, Gemini, Grok, Llama, and Qwen) under diverse adversarial prompt scenarios, including direct and multi-stage obfuscated attacks across multiple languages and character encodings. The proposed framework measures how effectively current LLMs resist manipulation into performing harmful actions. Our findings reveal systematic vulnerabilities across all tested models. Even direct prompt injections frequently induce the generation of phishing content, websites, and malware, while elaborate prompts achieve even higher malicious compliance rates, particularly for phishing. Models such as DeepSeek, Gemini, and Grok show especially high susceptibility under complex instructions. Notably, non-English languages consistently exhibit higher compliance rates than English, exposing significant gaps in multilingual safety alignment. Although simple character encodings reduce malicious outputs, they do not eliminate them. These results highlight persistent challenges in LLM safety and underscore the urgent need for stronger defenses and improved security mechanisms to support the ethical and secure deployment of LLMs in cybersecurity sensitive contexts.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 10 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2026.
Builds on
10 of 30 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal6 Feb
- 2024Signed-Prompt: A New Approach to Prevent Prompt Injection Attacks Against LLM-Integrated Applications15 Jan
Other references · 8
- 2023GPT-4 Is Too Smart To Be Safe: Stealthy Chat with LLMs via Ciphercited by 423
- 2024A StrongREJECT for Empty Jailbreakscited by 385
- 2023Low-Resource Languages Jailbreak GPT-4cited by 309
- 2023Multilingual Jailbreak Challenges in Large Language Modelscited by 240
- 2022Why Should Adversarial Perturbations be Imperceptible? Rethink the Research Paradigm in Adversarial NLPcited by 102
- 2025MedAgentBench: A Realistic Virtual EHR Environment to Benchmark Medical LLM Agentscited by 62
- 2024APOLLO: A GPT-based tool to detect phishing emails and generate explanations that warn userscited by 6
- 2025"Digital Camouflage": The LLVM Challenge in LLM-Based Malware Detectioncited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Automatic and Universal Prompt Injection Attacks against Large Language Models
- 2024Systematically Analyzing Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Diverse LLM Architectures
- 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications
- 2025A Critical Evaluation of Defenses against Prompt Injection Attacks
- 2025Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs
- 2025Prompt Injection as an Emerging Threat: Evaluating the Resilience of Large Language Models
- 2026Clouding the Mirror: Stealthy Prompt Injection Attacks Targeting LLM-based Phishing Detection
- 2024Exploring Vulnerabilities and Protections in Large Language Models: A Survey