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.
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.
Large language models are being integrated into malware triage workflows as reasoning components that summarize static evidence and produce analyst-facing verdicts. This paper shows that the same reasoning capability introduces a new attack surface. We present ALIBI, a semantic cover story attack against frontier LLM-based malware analyzers. ALIBI adds a small, non-executed read-only section to a compiled binary, containing a coherent but false security product narrative, without altering imports or executable behavior. Instead of issuing direct instructions to the model, it reframes suspicious evidence as expected behavior of a benign endpoint security tool. On a frozen PE set of 50 malicious samples, the payload flips 30 of the 35 baseline-malicious samples to benign on Gemini 2.5 Pro, while GPT-5.5 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 produce substantial severity downgrades with significant confidence reductions even when verdict labels are preserved. The attack transfers to ELF binaries, where Gemini flips 16 of 40. A verification-guided defense prompt roughly halves the benign verdicts, but 42.9 percent of malicious samples still reach benign. LLM malware analyzers therefore require provenance checks that separate verified facts from attacker-controlled claims, not narrative trust.