This paper presents a systematic security assessment of four prominent Large Language Models (LLMs) against diverse adversarial attack vectors. We evaluate Phi-2, Llama-2-7B-Chat, GPT-3.5-Turbo, and GPT-4 across four distinct attack categories: human-written prompts, AutoDAN, Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG), and Tree-of-Attacks-with-pruning (TAP). Our comprehensive evaluation employs 1,200 carefully stratified prompts from the SALAD-Bench dataset, spanning six harm categories. Results demonstrate significant variations in model robustness, with Llama-2 achieving the highest overall security (3.4% average attack success rate) while Phi-2 exhibits the greatest vulnerability (7.0% average attack success rate). We identify critical transferability patterns where GCG and TAP attacks, though ineffective against their target model (Llama-2), achieve substantially higher success rates when transferred to other models (up to 17% for GPT-4). Statistical analysis using Friedman tests reveals significant differences in vulnerability across harm categories ($p < 0.001$), with malicious use prompts showing the highest attack success rates (10.71% average). Our findings contribute to understanding cross-model security vulnerabilities and provide actionable insights for developing targeted defense mechanisms