Trusting the Tool: Asymmetric Deference of LLM Vulnerability Auditors to Static-Analysis Evidence

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for automated software vulnerability analysis. Binary classification alone is insufficient; practitioners need explanations to triage bugs and engineer patches. Standard practice relies on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, but free-form reasoning allows models to obscure logical leaps, hallucinated execution steps, and internal inconsistencies behind plausible prose. Our manual audit reveals that approximately 60% of correct vulnerability verdicts are accompanied by fabricated or unverifiable claims, and free-form explanations allow reasoning errors to evade LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. We present Vulnerability Explanation Reasoning Auditor (VERA), an automated framework for auditing LLM vulnerability reasoning. Rather than accepting free-form text, VERA asks models to output a Structured Reasoning Record (SRR) encoding tracked pointers, memory operations, and state transitions in machine-readable fields. A multi-stage judge audits each SRR against eight reasoning failure modes using deterministic checks, with LLM calls reserved for semantic interpretation. The standardized SRR schema also enables automated mutation testing to benchmark judges at scale without human annotation. Our evaluation shows reasoning flaws occur in correct verdicts just as frequently as incorrect ones, and VERA exposes 87% of reasoning errors that free-form LLM-as-judge systematically miss.

Large language models are increasingly used for vulnerability detection, yet their reliability under different prompt formulations remains uncharacterized. We present PromptAudit, a controlled evaluation framework that isolates prompt effects by fixing the dataset, decoding, and parsing while varying only the prompting strategy. Using five prompting strategies across five open-weight models on 1,000 CVEs (6,074 code samples spanning 16 programming languages), we evaluate accuracy, recall, abstention, coverage, and effective F1. We find that standard chain-of-thought prompting achieves the strongest overall operational performance, while few-shot prompting provides model-dependent benefits that are most pronounced for prompt-sensitive models. In contrast, adaptive chain-of-thought frequently suppresses recall and self-consistency induces excessive abstention, sharply reducing effective performance. These results show that vulnerability detection behavior is jointly determined by the model and the prompt, and that prompt sensitivity is a first-class system property that must be explicitly characterized in evaluation and deployment.

Large language model (LLM)-assisted software security operates at a difficult boundary: the vulnerability-analysis terminology needed for legitimate code review, triage, and repair can closely resemble terminology associated with misuse. Existing safety and cybersecurity evaluations are difficult to interpret in this setting because they often compare unrelated model families, thereby conflating safety behavior with differences in architecture, scale, training data, and deployment. To isolate this factor, we study safety state: whether refusal behavior remains intact (Aligned) or has been refusal-ablated (Abliterated) within same-lineage models. We ask how this safety state affects defensive utility across software-security workflows. We compare aligned instruction-tuned models with publicly released refusal-ablated descendants from two model families, Gemma and Qwen. We evaluate Aligned and Abliterated states on vulnerability detection, CWE attribution, vulnerable-line localization, root-cause localization, and executable patch validation. We further treat prompt wording as a controlled framing dimension: prompts begin with neutral code-review language, add authorization context, and vary the density of cybersecurity terminology. In a Gemma-based Java/Vul4J repair-validation study, Abliterated achieves higher early-stage validation rates, with 67.8%, 65.0%, and 32.8% of patches judged usable, successfully applied, and successfully compiled, respectively, compared with 29.9%, 24.9%, and 9.0% for Aligned. In the Qwen pair, Abliterated improves localization performance, increasing line-level F1 from 2.08% to 3.91% and Top-1 accuracy from 4.10% to 6.95%. These findings suggest that evaluations of LLM-based security assistants should jointly measure whether models respond, whether their usable responses are correct, and whether their outputs remain actionable across the engineering workflow.