LLM-Based Agents for Software and Systems Security: Approaches, Applications, and Assessment

Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly being integrated into real-world systems. Their autonomy and tool-use capabilities generate substantial value while simultaneously expanding the security attack surface. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the opportunities and challenges of LLM agents in security, focusing on two core areas: (1) threats to LLM agents themselves and corresponding mitigation strategies (LLM agents self-security), and (2) the role of LLM agents in empowering the cybersecurity lifecycle across offense and defense (LLM agents empowered cybersecurity). We first examine the internal and external attack surfaces of agents, propose a taxonomy organized by threat sources, and analyze associated mitigations and evaluation frameworks. We then investigate how agent capabilities are applied in cybersecurity practice and present, to our knowledge, the first agent-empowerment framework aligned with the full cyber offense-defense lifecycle. By systematically surveying these two areas, we are the first to highlight a positive feedback synergy between LLM agents self-security and empowered cybersecurity, offering new insights for the advancement of both. We further identify current limitations and outline promising directions for future research. The insights provided aim to catalyze the coordinated development of LLM agents self-security and agent empowered cybersecurity, paving the way for more capable and robust agent applications.

Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly moving from conversational interfaces to software components that plan, invoke tools, maintain memory, and act on external environments. This transition changes the nature of security risk. In agentic settings, failures are no longer limited to unsafe text generation. Untrusted content may redirect control flow, misuse tool privileges, corrupt persistent state, leak sensitive information, or trigger harmful external actions. At the same time, research on LLM agent security is expanding quickly but remains fragmented across attack families, defense layers, application domains, and evaluation settings. This paper synthesizes 247 papers through a lifecycle-based, systems-oriented framework that models agent security around the interaction of information flow, delegated authority, and persistent state. We organize the literature around four questions: how LLM agent security should be modeled, which threat surfaces and attack families dominate, what defenses have been proposed and with what tradeoffs, and how security claims are evaluated. We find that prompt injection and tool-mediated control-flow hijacking still dominate the field, while persistent state corruption and multi-agent propagation are becoming central emerging concerns. We further find that current defenses provide useful building blocks but remain weakly compositional, and that existing benchmarks still underrepresent long-horizon, stateful, and deployment-sensitive risks. We argue that secure LLM agents require explicit trust boundaries, principled privilege control, provenance-aware state management, and evaluation practices aligned with realistic operational settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are moving from code completion toward repository-scale agents that retrieve context, edit files, execute tools, and participate in security-sensitive workflows. The evidence for these systems, however, remains divided between software engineering evaluations centered on functional task completion and software security evaluations centered on vulnerability detection, secure generation, or exploit-oriented validation. This evidence-centered structured survey synthesizes representative work available through May 31, 2026 across software engineering tasks, software security tasks, adaptation mechanisms, artifact granularity, and evaluation design. In addition to a task taxonomy, we introduce an assurance framework that separates functional correctness, security, operational reliability, evidence provenance, and agent authority. The review shows that execution feedback and repository access can substantially improve engineering task completion, but do not by themselves establish security; conversely, static-analysis labels or vulnerability-classification scores rarely establish deployable correctness. We identify recurring validity threats--weak test oracles, duplicated and temporally leaked data, changing agent harnesses, proxy-only security checks, and under-reported budgets and human intervention--and derive a minimum reporting protocol for cross-study comparison. The resulting research agenda prioritizes jointly secure-and-functional benchmarks, repository-scale threat models, calibrated human oversight, longitudinal maintainability evidence, and reproducible agent evaluation. The central conclusion is that model capability should be judged as an assurance case supported by task-appropriate evidence, rather than by a single benchmark score.