LCC-LLM: Leveraging Code-Centric Large Language Models for Malware Attribution
Authors: Christopher G. Pedraza Pohlenz, Hassan Jalil Hadi, Ali Hassan, Ali Shoker
Organizations: aCyberSaR, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955-6900, Makkah Province, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
LLMs are increasingly explored for malware analysis; however, current LLM-based malware attribution remains limited by unsupported indicators and insufficient code-level grounding for identifying malicious and vulnerable code segments. To address these limitations, this research introduces LCC-LLM, a code-centric benchmark dataset and evidence-grounded framework for malware attribution and multi-task static malware analysis. The proposed LCCD dataset contains approximately 34K PE samples processed through a large-scale reverse-engineering pipeline and represented using decompiled C code, assembly code, CFG/FCG artifacts, hexadecimal data, PE metadata, suspicious API evidence, and structural features. Beyond dataset construction, LCC-LLM integrates LangGraph-orchestrated static analysis with multi-source cybersecurity knowledge to support evidence-grounded malware reasoning. The framework employs a seven-layer retrieval-augmented generation pipeline, CoVe for IoC validation, and a multi-dimensional quality gate to improve factual reliability and analyst-oriented decision support. Curriculum-ordered instruction data is used to fine-tune DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B and Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B using QLoRA. Evaluation across 43 malware-analysis task types achieves an average semantic similarity of 0.634, with the highest task-level performance in structured report generation, IoC extraction, vulnerability assessment, malware configuration extraction, and malware class detection. In a real-world case study using MalwareBazaar samples, the grounded pipeline achieves a 10/10 structured analysis pass rate, producing CFG/FCG evidence, MITRE ATT&CK mappings, detection guidance, and analyst-ready reports. These results show that code-centric representations, retrieval grounding, and verification-guided reasoning improve the reliability and operational usefulness of LLM-assisted malware attribution.
Malware analysts often inspect compiled binaries through decompiled pseudo-C, when source code is unavailable. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) can assist this process by classifying decompiled code as benign or malicious, but existing pipelines typically rely on a single decompiler view. We argue that this assumption is fragile: decompilers are lossy heuristic tools, and different decompilers can expose different artefacts of the same binary. We curate a benchmark of benign utilities and malicious programs spanning a range of threat behaviors. Each sample is compiled and decompiled with both Ghidra and RetDec, yielding matched pseudo-C views. Across a range of LLMs from major model families, we find that providing both decompiler views improves malicious-class F1, mainly by increasing recall on malicious samples. Agreement analyses further show that Ghidra and RetDec make partially different errors, supporting the view that decompiler outputs provide complementary evidence. Our results suggest that multi-decompiler prompting is a simple, training-free way to improve LLM-based malware triage in practical settings.
Malware analysis demands rapid interpretation of complex detonation reports spanning filesystem, network, and process behaviours. While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities for technical artifact interpretation, the opacity and escalating API costs of closed-weight frontier models motivate exploration of open-weight alternatives. However, many open-weight models are large, demanding significant compute resources and incurring non-trivial hosting costs that place them beyond reach for resource-constrained deployments. This paper investigates whether orchestrated ensembles of small language models (SLMs) can match or exceed single LLM performance on structured questions about malware detonation reports. We established baselines by testing eleven open-weight SLMs, three cyber security pre-trained models, and six frontier LLMs on Meta's CyberSecEval Malware Analysis benchmark. We then designed and evaluated four orchestration architectures: (i) a multi-agent pipeline that decomposes analysis into structured evidence-collection and reasoning stages, (ii) an adversarial debate framework in which two agents iteratively critique each other's reasoning, (iii) a hierarchical consultation system that pairs a general-purpose SLM with a cyber-specialised expert model, and (iv) a hybrid architecture that combines evidence-grounded pipelines with adversarial debate reasoning. The hybrid system (Qwen3-4B with Foundation-Sec-8B) achieved 35.30% overall accuracy, exceeding the strongest cyber-specialised baseline (22.54%) and the strongest ungrounded frontier baseline (34.77%); when given the same evidence pipeline, grounded Gemini remained the strongest configuration at 38.22%. These findings show that evidence-grounded orchestration can substantially improve the performance of collaborative SLMs for supporting interpretation of malware detonation reports.
Malware analysis starts with the raw bytes of an executable program, and tools to "lift" these to higher-level representations, such as assembly, are expensive and subject to error. Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot process raw byte representations and answer questions about them. To this end, we present the first byte-native LLM. Based on a vocabulary expansion technique using a bespoke byte tokenizer, such a model is capable of responding to complex questions about malware binaries, with accuracies ranging from 69% for malware family classification to 98% for architecture classification. Our findings indicate that providing domain knowledge during training is essential for this application -- off-the-shelf models lack both accuracy and insight. We've deployed this emerging solution to a limited number of analysts to gather feedback for further improvements.
Florian Störtz, Catalin-Andrei Stan, Alexandru Dinu +4