Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK

Prompt-security claims for large language models (LLMs) are often compared as properties of individual attacks or defenses, although measured harmfulness depends on the target model, access setting, attack and defense configuration, prompt sample, and judger. We systematize 272 studies through three linked, multi-label taxonomies of jailbreak attacks, defenses, and model vulnerabilities. To make these dependencies explicit, we introduce an access-compatible evaluation protocol over configured $\langle M,A,D,S,J\rangle$ tuples and instantiate it in PromptSecurity, an open-source platform that records method settings, outputs, judgments, and query costs. We release two complementary datasets: JailbreakDB, with 445,752 jailbreak system-user prompt pairs and 1,094,122 benign prompts, and PromptSecurity-Eval, with 166,200 harmful-query and 25,800 benign-utility output records. We evaluate 11 target models, 20 attacks, nine defenses, and three automated judgers under a matched, single-turn protocol using 100 harmful queries and separate benign-utility tasks. Lower attack success can reflect failure to execute transformed requests rather than stronger safety; attack-category advantages can reverse when one method is excluded, and attack success varies with assistant choice. Defenses can reduce harmful outputs while degrading benign-task utility or causing backfire. Rejudging identical outputs also shows that measured attack success is sensitive to the behavior supplied to the judger, highlighting the need to report judger configurations alongside ASR. These findings motivate configuration-aware reporting rather than context-free method rankings. Resources: https://datasec-lab.github.io/PromptSecurityLeaderboard/ https://huggingface.co/datasets/youbin2014/JailbreakDB https://huggingface.co/datasets/youbin2014/PromptSecurity-Eval https://github.com/datasec-lab/PromptSecurity

LLMs-as-judges are the primary way to evaluate safety at scale. Despite their importance, LLM-judges themselves are rarely evaluated beyond human agreement in simple, static benchmarks. We therefore investigate two under-explored but crucial properties of LLMs-as-judges: their sensitivity to in-context information, and their steerability to differing safety definitions, which may not align with their internal safety priors. We evaluate the safety judging abilities of 13 generalist LLMs and safety-specific judges, and investigate the impact of novel in-context information and changing safety definitions. We find that while LLM-judges can learn from new information, they are broadly unlikely to update their evaluations if the context or safety definition departs from their prior.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success but remain highly susceptible to jailbreak attacks, in which adversarial prompts coerce models into generating harmful, unethical, or policy-violating outputs. Such attacks pose real-world risks, eroding safety, trust, and regulatory compliance in high-stakes applications. Although a variety of attack and defense methods have been proposed, existing evaluation practices are inadequate, often relying on narrow metrics like attack success rate that fail to capture the multidimensional nature of LLM security. In this paper, we present a systematic taxonomy of jailbreak attacks and defenses and introduce Security Cube, a unified, multi-dimensional framework for comprehensive evaluation of these techniques. We provide detailed comparison tables of existing attacks and defenses, highlighting key insights and open challenges across the literature. Leveraging Security Cube, we conduct benchmark studies on 13 representative attacks and 5 defenses, establishing a clear view of the current landscape encompassing jailbreak attacks, defenses, automated judges, and LLM vulnerabilities. Based on these evaluations, we distill critical findings, identify unresolved problems, and outline promising research directions for enhancing LLM robustness against jailbreak attacks. Our analysis aims to pave the way towards more robust, interpretable, and trustworthy LLM systems. Our code is available at Code.