LLMs are increasingly used for code generation in critical infrastructure, yet the security effect of domain-specific prompting is understudied. We present SecDrift, a benchmark measuring sector-conditioned security drift: the change in static-analysis vulnerability rates when prompts are conditioned on industry contexts versus neutral baselines. We evaluate 7 LLMs (6 producing analyzable code) across 8 CISA critical infrastructure sectors and 9 CWE categories with 5 replicates (5,355 evaluations), using a 5-dimension transformation with a matched-baseline condition that holds the task fixed while substituting only domain terminology. Industry prompts naively appear more secure (14.0% vs. 11.4%, -2.7pp), but the gap is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact p = 0.24, Cohen's h = -0.08) and is a composition artifact of two CWE categories: excluding CWE-502 and CWE-22 eliminates and slightly reverses it (+0.4pp, p = 1.00). A mixed-effects logistic regression confirms sector identity is not a moderator and localizes the only detectable condition effect to those two vulnerability types. 0 of 8 sectors show drift distinguishable from baseline, corrected or uncorrected (|h| < 0.15). A placebo on two non-CISA sectors (e-commerce, online education) reproduces the CISA industry rate almost exactly (10.5% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.63): the small pooled pattern reflects generic industry-framing specificity, not critical-infrastructure identity. In contrast, model selection has a large and consistent effect: among full-output models vulnerability rates range from 11.6% to 16.1%, and these differences persist across conditions. Model choice, not prompt framing, is the more reliable security lever. We release the framework, prompts, generated code, findings, human-validation verdicts, and analysis scripts.
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.
Mohammed F. Kharma, Mohammad Alkhanafseh, Ahmed Sabbah +1
LLM-based coding assistants are seeing rapid adoption, offering substantial gains in developer productivity. As organizations increasingly ship code these agents produce, the security of that code becomes critical. Prior work has shown that minor prompt perturbations degrade the functional correctness of LLM-generated code, but whether they also compromise code security has remained unstudied. We apply token-level mutations to prompts across three models and five programming languages, and show that mutations as small as a single-character change can flip generated code from secure to vulnerable. Probing the models' hidden states reveals that this fragility is partially encoded in prompt representations, but unevenly so. Input-handling vulnerabilities, where the model omits validation or sanitization, are more predictable (mean AUC 0.753) than secure-defaults vulnerabilities, where insecure code stems from one local choice such as a weak algorithm or unsafe parameter (mean AUC 0.674). These results show that the threat model for LLM-assisted coding extends beyond prompt injection to ordinary prompt variation, and indicate that input-handling flaws can be caught before generation while secure-defaults flaws require intervention during decoding.
Alexander Sternfeld, Andrei Kucharavy, Ljiljana Dolamic
LLM coding agents now generate code at an unprecedented scale, yet LLM-generated code introduces cybersecurity vulnerabilities into codebases without human involvement. Even when frontier models are explicitly asked to write secure production code with relevant weaknesses to avoid in context, we find that they still produce verifiable vulnerabilities on average 23% of the time across a corpus of 250 benign coding prompts. We introduce SecureForge, an automated pipeline that both audits security risks of frontier models and produces auditing-informed secure system prompts that reduce output security vulnerabilities while maintaining unit test performance. SecureForge first identifies benign prompts that produce statically detectable vulnerabilities, and then amplifies them into a large synthetic prompt corpus of diverse scenarios using a Markovian sampling technique to jointly maintain error rates and prompt diversity. This corpus is then used to iteratively optimize the system prompts to reduce output security vulnerabilities. On frontier models, SecureForge yields a statistically significant Pareto improvement in both unit test success and output security, with output vulnerabilities reduced by up to 48%. The resulting system prompts transfer zero-shot to in-the-wild coding agent prompts, without any exposure to real user prompt distributions during optimization.