Towards Secure Logging: Characterizing and Benchmarking Logging Code Security Issues with LLMs
Authors: He Yang Yuan, Xin Wang, Kundi Yao, An Ran Chen, Zishuo Ding, Zhenhao Li
Organizations: York University, Toronto, Canada · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China · University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada · University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Logging code plays an important role in software systems by recording key events and behaviors, which are essential for debugging and monitoring. However, insecure logging practices can inadvertently expose sensitive information or enable attacks such as log injection, posing serious threats to system security and privacy. Prior research has examined general defects in logging code, but systematic analysis of logging code security issues remains limited, particularly in leveraging LLMs for detection and repair. In this paper, we derive a comprehensive taxonomy of logging code security issues, encompassing four common issue categories and 10 corresponding patterns. We further construct a benchmark dataset with 101 real-world logging security issue reports that have been manually reviewed and annotated. We then propose an automated framework that incorporates various contextual knowledge to evaluate LLMs' capabilities in detecting and repairing logging security issues. Our experimental results reveal a notable disparity in performance: while LLMs are moderately effective at detecting security issues (e.g., the accuracy ranges from 12.9% to 52.5% on average), they face noticeable challenges in reliably generating correct code repairs. We also find that the issue description alone improves the LLMs' detection accuracy more than the security pattern explanation or a combination of both. Overall, our findings provide actionable insights for practitioners and highlight the potential and limitations of current LLMs for secure logging.
This paper presents AuditBench, a new benchmark dataset for evaluating the capabilities of LLMs at investigating security-related system audit logs. We design and use this benchmark to explore the performance of LLMs on four log-investigation tasks that incident response teams commonly perform, ranging from triaging alerts generated by detectors to identifying persistence mechanisms on compromised systems. AuditBench consists of system audit logs collected from Linux and Windows machines, and spans over 50 different security investigation scenarios, including both malicious and benign activity. Using our benchmark, we evaluate and analyze the performance of five frontier LLMs at analyzing audit logs for attack investigations. Our analysis illuminates how LLM performance and error profiles vary according to different design choices, such as differences in model size, data representation, prompt construction, and specific investigation tasks. Additionally, we characterize the quality of the explanations produced by LLMs and the types of errors that models make across our benchmark. Collectively, our work provides a foundation for assessing the capabilities of LLMs for investigating security logs, novel insights for practitioners using LLMs in security operations, and important directions for future research.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, yet their security behavior in realistic development workflows remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often rely on explicitly specified security requirements, failing to capture real-world scenarios where prompts are frequently ambiguous or incomplete. In this paper, we adopt a developer-centric perspective and identify three representative risk scenarios that commonly lead to security vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code: Ambiguous Requirements, Under-Specified Operational Context, and Security--Functionality Conflict. Based on these scenarios, we construct a large-scale benchmark comprising 2,700 test cases, enabling fine-grained evaluation of LLM security under realistic conditions. Extensive evaluation of eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that all models exhibit average vulnerability rates exceeding 56% across risk scenarios. We further demonstrate that security-aware prompting can substantially mitigate these risks, achieving up to 45% improvement.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as analyst assistants in security operations centers (SOCs), where they ingest log and alert data to produce triage labels, incident summaries, or remediation advice. We study a structural failure mode of this design: many log fields are attacker controlled. User agents, URLs, payloads, DNS queries, and attempted usernames can therefore carry instructions to the model alongside evidence of the intrusion. We call this setting \emph{log-substrate prompt injection}. We introduce a four-class taxonomy of log-substrate attacks: direct override (S1), persona hijack (S2), context manipulation (S3), and obfuscated payloads (S4). We evaluate 48 strategy-defense-task combinations using \texttt{gpt-4o-mini} as the analyst. Three findings stand out. First, direct overrides are ineffective in our setting: all S1 classification attacks achieve 0% suppression. In contrast, persona hijacks suppress 68% of malicious logs under a naive classifier and remain effective under stronger defenses. Second, summarization is the highest-risk task: context manipulation reaches 96% injection success without defenses and 38% even with constrained output. Third, defenses reduce but do not eliminate the attack surface: average injection success falls from 26.6% under naive prompting to 11.8% under our strongest defense. We also compare empirical results to a deterministic mock analyst and find that simulation substantially mispredicts current model behavior, especially for direct overrides. These results suggest that SOC copilots should treat raw log content as adversarial input rather than ordinary analyst context.