Poison with Style: A Practical Poisoning Attack on Code Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned on uncurated text datasets that adversaries can poison. Existing poisoning attacks primarily rely on fixed trigger phrases that defenses such as outlier detection, clean-data regularization, or online monitoring can neutralize. In this paper, we propose a data poisoning method that teaches an LLM an information hiding scheme reliably and stealthily through semantic associations between shared knowledge such as facts or concepts and attacker-chosen phrases. The induced hiding scheme can encode and decode arbitrary malicious instructions, thus revealing a new and subtle poisoning-induced vulnerability: covert control attacks. We precisely characterize covert control attacks and evaluate them across $5$ LLMs, $3$ backdoor defenses, and $4$ prompt injection defenses. With a small poisoned fraction, covert control attacks outperform heuristic-based prompt injection attacks in average attack success rate by about $40\%$ relative to clean fine-tuned models. They also circumvent defenses based on detection and fine-tuning, maintaining up to $93\%$ attack success rate after backdoor defenses and up to $98\%$ after prompt injection defenses.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software development has made distinguishing AI-generated code from human-written code a critical challenge with implications for academic integrity, code quality assurance, and software security. We present LLMSniffer, a detection framework that fine-tunes GraphCodeBERT using a two-stage supervised contrastive learning pipeline augmented with comment removal preprocessing and an MLP classifier. Evaluated on two benchmark datasets - GPTSniffer and Whodunit - LLMSniffer achieves substantial improvements over prior baselines: accuracy increases from 70% to 78% on GPTSniffer (F1: 68% to 78%) and from 91% to 94.65% on Whodunit (F1: 91% to 94.64%). t-SNE visualizations confirm that contrastive fine-tuning yields well-separated, compact embeddings. We release our model checkpoints, datasets, codes and a live interactive demo to facilitate further research.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, but their security reliability remains inconsistent across languages and prompting strategies. Existing prompt engineering improves functional correctness but rarely ensures consistent security outcomes. We introduce the \textit{Mitigation-Aware Chain-of-Thought (MA-CoT)} framework, which embeds task-specific CWE mitigation guidance and language-aware safeguards to reduce recurring vulnerabilities in generated code. We evaluate MA-CoT across three LLMs (gpt-5, claude-4.5, gemini-2.5), three programming languages (C, Java, Python), and four prompting strategies (Vanilla, Zero-shot, CoT, MA-CoT) on a 200-task primary dataset, with external validation on LLMSecEval. Using static analysis with expert validation, MA-CoT reduces total security findings from 92 to 39 (57.6%) on the primary dataset and from 73 to 4 (94.5%) on LLMSecEval. High-severity findings (Blocker + Critical) drop from 90 to 39 (56.7%) and from 45 to 2 (95.6%), respectively. Across both datasets, MA-CoT is the only strategy that consistently improves security reliability; Zero-shot and CoT are less reliable and may increase vulnerability, especially in C. We further introduce a strict layered attribution of vulnerability drivers (language-core vs. stack layers) and show that residual risk concentrates in hardening-oriented patterns (e.g., OS- and toolchain-dependent), motivating secure-by-construction primitives alongside prompting.