Vulnerability Detection & Repair

Software vulnerabilities are often discovered long after they are introduced, making it difficult to identify the vulnerability-inducing commit (VIC) responsible for introducing the underlying vulnerable condition. Existing VIC identification techniques largely rely on git blame to trace vulnerable code through revision history and use positional heuristics, such as selecting its earliest or most recent modification. However, the true VIC may occur anywhere within this history, and vulnerable behavior may depend on code that evolves across multiple revisions. We therefore argue that VIC identification requires reasoning about how vulnerability-relevant code evolves, rather than simply where a candidate commit appears in the revision history. We present TraceVIC, a temporal graph-based approach for identifying and ranking VICs by reasoning over code evolution. TraceVIC first localizes likely root-cause lines and traces their histories across revisions, constructing graph representations that capture program structure within each revision and the evolution of vulnerability-relevant code across the history. It reasons over the resulting revision history, using temporal edges to preserve correspondences between program elements across consecutive revisions, and directly ranks candidate commits according to their contribution to the vulnerable condition. Ablation results show that modeling the full revision history improves F2 from 0.637 to 0.814. TraceVIC improves F2 by up to 28.7% over state-of-the-art methods and identifies a valid VIC for 78 of 79 vulnerabilities across four unseen C/C++ projects.

Language-model agents increasingly operate over complete software repositories, yet cybersecurity evaluations primarily measure whether they can detect, reproduce, or repair vulnerabilities rather than whether they can locate the relevant code. We study vulnerability localization: given a weakness class and an unfamiliar repository, identify the implementation files associated with that weakness. We introduce the Vulnerability Localization Benchmark (VLoc Bench), comprising 500 real world vulnerabilities from 290 repositories across six package ecosystems and 147 CWE categories. Each task pairs repository snapshots immediately before and after a security fix. On the vulnerable snapshot, an agent receives only the CWE description and read-only terminal access and must return the affected files; on the patched snapshot, it must determine that the recorded vulnerability is no longer present. We evaluate 27 language models and four static-analysis tools under a common agent interface. Repository-scale vulnerability localization remains difficult: the strongest system achieves 0.229 File F1, and 38.4% of tasks receive no correct localization from any evaluated model. We further find that stronger localization does not imply reliable behavior after remediation: systems that identify vulnerable files effectively can still report unsupported locations on patched repositories. These results establish vulnerability localization as a distinct repository-scale capability and provide a setting for studying both how security agents search for vulnerable code and when they should refrain from reporting it.

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

Advances in large language models (LLMs) fuel the quest for scalable methods to assess the security of generated and security-sensitive software. Static analysis is widely adopted as a scalable, reproducible, and inexpensive security gate, but cannot directly observe runtime exploit behaviour. Vulnerabilities dependent on adversarial inputs, execution context, or exploit chaining may evade static checks while remaining exploitable in practice, yet passing static analysis is often treated as evidence of secure behaviour. This paper introduces the Static-Pass Dynamic-Fail (SPDF) phenomenon and a three-stage agentic pipeline combining static scanning, LLM-driven Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) reasoning, and autonomous exploit verification in isolated Docker containers. We evaluate 1,355 Python samples from SecurityEval, RedCode, and CyberNative datasets. Of the 654 samples producing no findings under the composite Bandit-Semgrep gate, the LLM detection stage identified 394 candidate vulnerabilities across 235 files. Dynamic verification confirmed or partially confirmed exploitability in 95 files, yielding an inclusive pipeline rate of 14.53% (roughly 1 in 7 statically clean samples). This rate represents the proportion of Bandit-Semgrep-clean samples for which the pipeline identified a candidate vulnerability and obtained runtime evidence supporting exploitability. Outcomes varied by dataset: among candidate file--CWE pairs, confirmed exploitability was 33.7% for RedCode, 28.6% for CyberNative, and 5.4% for SecurityEval. Several frequently confirmed classes, including CWE-338 and CWE-916, were flagged by neither Bandit nor Semgrep. These findings indicate that static-analysis success and runtime security are hierarchical layers of software assurance rather than interchangeable measures, and have the potential to reshape how AI-generated and security-sensitive code is evaluated.

We introduce CVSS-X, a large-scale synthetic speech-to-speech translation corpus that extends CVSS by reversing the translation direction. While CVSS translates from 21 languages into English, CVSS-X enables translation from English into 28 target languages spanning 12 language families. The corpus comprises approximately 240,000 parallel speech pairs per language, totaling over 16,000 hours, eight times larger than CVSS. We provide two variants: CVSS-X-C with two canonical voices per language, and CVSS-X-T with cross-lingual voice cloning, both fully generated. Evaluation shows comparable translation quality to CVSS with consistent performance across typologically diverse languages. Combined with CVSS, this enables research on bidirectional and multilingual speech-to-speech translation. The code is available at https://github.com/ErmisAI/XVSS-X and the dataset under CC-BY-NC 4.0 license at https://huggingface.co/datasets/lgris/XVSS-X.

Agentic systems are rapidly moving to production, where they read untrusted inputs, call tools with real permissions, and act autonomously, expanding the security surface beyond chat-only models. Yet standard evaluations remain single-turn and fail to capture multi-step agent vulnerabilities. We present a systematic black-box framework for risk-aware agent evaluation requiring only basic system descriptions. Our approach introduces: (1) a seven-domain taxonomy mapping observable behaviors to risk categories, (2) fully automated SAGE-RT red teaming producing 120 adversarial scenarios per domain, and (3) human-validated evaluation using LLM judges. Empirical validation across two agent architectures (CrewAI and AutoGen) with four base models reveals alarming patterns: 56.25% average governance risk, 65% privacy risk in multi-agent configurations, and agent behavior vulnerabilities reaching 85%. Our black-box approach effectively identifies critical architectural vulnerabilities without privileged access, providing a scalable path toward safer agent deployments.

Conventional vulnerability analysis relies on either system access or dynamic interaction, all of which may be unavailable to third-party analysts auditing closed-source, remotely hosted, critical in situ systems, or commercially gated software. Therefore, we propose a new paradigm of no-box vulnerability analysis in which neither access nor runtime interaction is available, and only functionality metadata is available. Such metadata defines the intended behavior of the system, including its inputs, outputs, and side effects, while constraining the space of implementations consistent with that behavior. We propose hypothesizing about vulnerabilities that exist across all possible implementations of a given system metadata, without observing or interacting with the target system. An analyst can later validate these hypotheses when additional access is available. We showcase the feasibility of no-box vulnerability analysis through implementing a prototype called MCPSEC, which audits Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers for indirect prompt injection vulnerabilities using only the tool metadata exposed at server registration time. We evaluate MCPSEC on 20 widely deployed MCP servers comprising 177 tools, among which human evaluators confirm 95 vulnerable tools. MCPSEC identified 143 tools as vulnerable, and for each vulnerable tool, it produced a hypothesized vulnerability along with exploitation technique. Using metadata alone, MCPSEC predicted 94 (98.9% recall) real verified vulnerabilities, compared against an LLM baseline with 80 (84.2% recall). Overall, our results introduce no-box vulnerability analysis as a new analysis paradigm and demonstrate its practical feasibility in realistic systems.

The software supply chain has become an increasingly exposed attack surface because of its reliance on intricate yet fragile dependencies. Existing defenses such as GitHub Dependabot often raise many false alerts because their coarse-grained matching cannot determine whether a vulnerable dependency is actually exploitable. Security analysts typically spend substantial time assessing vulnerability exploitability case by case. Recent LLM agents have emerged as promising candidates for this task given their advanced capabilities in coding and cybersecurity, yet no existing benchmark evaluates them on it. Prior benchmarks target zero-day settings, where agents detect and exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities. In contrast, software supply chain security focuses on how known vulnerabilities in upstream dependencies affect downstream projects. This requires agents to reason across repositories and determine whether an upstream vulnerability is exploitable in the downstream project. To address this gap, we introduce VEX-Bench, the first benchmark for evaluating LLM agents' ability to assess the exploitability of software supply chain vulnerabilities. It contains 75 real-world cases mined from GitHub and labeled by security experts, covering Python, Java, and Go. We evaluate nine models across three agent harnesses. While GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 reach approximately 80% F1 on binary vulnerability-status classification, only GPT-5.5 surpasses 70% macro-F1 on fine-grained justification classification. This gap highlights the challenge of moving beyond binary exploitability assessment to identifying fine-grained exploitability reasons. Code and data: https://github.com/steven1518/vex-bench

Large language model (LLM) based agents are increasingly applied to cybersecurity tasks such as vulnerability discovery and automated penetration testing. On long-horizon security tasks, however, such agents remain limited by context forgetting and intent drift: early critical facts and causal reasoning chains are lost over extended interactions, and the agent falls into aimless, repetitive exploration. This paper proposes Intentest, an intent-graph-guided automated penetration testing agent that externalizes long-horizon state from the LLM's context window onto a persistent fact-intent directed acyclic graph (DAG), thereby substantially reducing invalid transitions. We evaluate Intentest on automated penetration testing of web applications, a representative long-tail task in cybersecurity. In the DAG, verified network states are stored as immutable fact nodes, and exploration directions are constrained as intent edges bounded by predecessor facts. The system adopts a three-layer architecture, in which the fact-intent mapping layer maintains the global state, the task scheduling and allocation layer ensures execution stability through two-phase degradation recovery and multi-dimensional adaptive load balancing, and the intent retrieval and prediction layer provides tactical priors through a top-down five-stage filtering algorithm. On a benchmark of real CTF challenges covering more than ten vulnerability types across three difficulty levels, Intentest achieves an overall success rate of 88.2% and a success rate of 75.0% on hard tasks, improving over the baseline by approximately 44 and 50 percentage points. Ablation experiments further show that the intent retrieval and prediction reduce the average number of rounds on successful medium and hard tasks by about 33% and 48%, respectively, without changing the set of solvable tasks.

AI agents have recently demonstrated strong performance in automated vulnerability patching. However, existing evaluations often validate a patch only by testing whether the provided Proof-of-Concept (PoC) input still triggers a crash. This leaves two key threats to validity: agents may reproduce memorized historical developer patches, or they may generate surface-level fixes that only suppress the reported crash. We study these concerns for C/C++ vulnerability patching. We introduce a patch similarity metric to detect memorized patches. On average, 25% of the agent patches exhibit substantial similarity to historical developer patches, indicating that patch memorization is a real threat to the validity of vulnerability patching evaluations. Meanwhile, agents also frequently exploit benchmark structures to pass patch validation by patching on the crash stack trace to suppress the crash, rather than localizing and fixing the root cause of the vulnerabilities. To handle these issues, we propose PatchBench, a new benchmark for evaluating AI agents on realistic vulnerability patching tasks. PatchBench selects vulnerabilities whose ground-truth fixes lie outside the crash stack and uses vulnerability transplant and code mutations to migrate historical vulnerabilities into new repository contexts, reducing the risks of surface-level fixes and patch memorization. We develop new patch validation methods that thoroughly evaluate both security and semantic correctness of agent patches. Across 11 state-of-the-art agents, including the top three AIxCC agents, the original PoC-only validation inflates the patching task solve rate of agents by 1.83$\times$ on average. Our results reveal key limitations of current patching agents and point to future research directions for more reliable vulnerability repair.

Recent unlearning methods (e.g. NPO, DPO, LUNAR) make use of refusal alignment to suppress forgotten data. However, it has been shown that refusal responses might leave traces of unlearning, and recent attacks have been able to successfully recover some of the unlearned knowledge. In this paper, we uncover a new vulnerability. Existing attacks typically assume that the forgotten prompts are already known to the adversary and focus on recovering their answers. However, we show that the forgotten prompts themselves can be extracted by using the retained data and black-box access to the model. Our attack, Targeted Active Search (TAS), first identifies the forgotten entities by constructing canonical templates and entity pool, and selectively querying the model using the most informative template-entity pair under a limited query budget. Once the entities are identified, TAS instantiates prompt templates with those entities to probe the unlearned model and reconstruct the forgotten prompts. Experiments across three unlearning methods with three datasets and three LLMs shows that TAS recovers the forgotten entity with $100\%$ accuracy and reconstructs up to $95\%$ of forgotten prompts, all while using up to $99.7\%$ fewer queries than naive probing.

A single vulnerability in a widely used library can cascade through millions of dependent applications, yet more than half of vulnerability database entries contain missing or incorrect affected-library information. Existing automated approaches neglect the relational structure of vulnerability databases, treating identification as an isolated text retrieval problem. In this paper, we propose Athena, the first graph-based approach for vulnerability affected library identification. Athena models vulnerability databases as a knowledge graph and reformulates the identification problem as knowledge graph completion (KGC). It comprises three key modules: a Modeling module that constructs a security knowledge graph integrating CVEs, libraries, CWE weakness types, CPE products, and software ecosystems; a Completion module that applies a modular KGC backbone to predict missing affected libraries for a given CVE via link prediction; and a Re-ranking module that retrieves KGC candidates and rescores them using a fine-tuned LLM augmented with knowledge graph embeddings, jointly leveraging structural and textual information. Our experiments on VulLib demonstrate that Athena significantly outperforms four state-of-the-art baselines, achieving a 32% improvement in Avg. F1 over the best baseline (i.e., VulLibGen). Notably, our KGC backbone with only 110M parameters already surpasses VulLibGen's best configuration at 7B parameters, demonstrating the effectiveness of graph-based modeling; the re-ranking module then provides substantial further gains, consistently outperforming the best baseline across all evaluated LLM backbones.

Coding agents are increasingly used for software engineering tasks, including bootstrapping projects from third-party repositories whose integrity cannot be assumed. Prior work on repository poisoning largely focuses on attacker-controlled injection and disguise, but developers also shape risk through everyday invocation choices: what task to delegate, how to phrase the request, and which skills or rules to supply. We term these user-side choices Prompt-Level Configurations (PLCs) and introduce CIPR (Coding In Poisoned Repos), the first benchmark that systematically varies PLCs in poisoned real-world repositories. CIPR comprises 1,920 instances across 20 repositories, four task types, three social-media-grounded prompt styles, and three skill/rule conditions, and measures attack success rate (ASR) and agent alert rate (AR) using automated runtime and trace-based oracles. Our evaluation reveals two key insights: (1) Vulnerability is highly context-dependent, with task type creating up to a 4.5-fold difference in ASR, with test-execution task forming a silent attack surface (high ASR, low AR). (2) Prompt expression shifts risk indirectly: underspecified prompts reduce ASR by truncating execution depth; noisy prompts exhibit a directional trend toward suppressing alerts by making malicious content less conspicuous. These findings highlight that coding agent vulnerability is not a static property, but a dynamic outcome shaped by everyday user configurations.

Autonomous vehicles depend on large safety-critical software stacks, where weaknesses reachable from adversarial inputs may affect steering, braking, or other control decisions. Static analysis can identify candidate sites, but dynamically confirming exploitability requires executable test artifacts that are difficult to construct manually. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can automate this process for Autoware, an open-source autonomous-driving stack. We perform compiler-precise static analysis across 185 packages, identifying 1,375 decision rules, 2,274 validation checks, and 482 input-to-safety-output flows, from which we derive a weakness taxonomy and sample 740 reachable sites. Two local open-weight LLMs, a no-static-context ablation, and a naive-template baseline generate 3,700 artifact sets, which are compiled against the real build under sanitizers, repaired through compiler-in-the-loop feedback, and fuzzed when executable. The main result is a build-integration failure taxonomy showing that 80% of first-shot compilation failures arise from dependency wiring rather than program logic. The reasoning model compiled 64% of harnesses on the first attempt, compared with 6% for the code-specialized model. Repair achieved full object-compileability for the reasoning model only through extensive stubbing; fewer than half of its harnesses reached the fuzzer, and all 37 observed crashes originated in stubbed code rather than Autoware. No candidate weakness was dynamically confirmed within budget. These results show that build integration, not candidate generation or fuzzing, is the primary barrier to reliable LLM-assisted dynamic analysis of full autonomous-vehicle software stacks.

Vertical Federated Learning (VFL) enables organizations holding complementary features of shared entities to collaborate and train models. In this setting, the initiator can withhold information about the learning task, while other contributors participate without exposing their local datasets, creating an asymmetric information structure aligned with growing privacy demands. However, this asymmetry is a double-edged sword. Among various threats, backdoor attacks are particularly concerning because VFL not only enables malicious contributors to poison the model during training, but also allows them to activate the backdoor at inference time to manipulate predictions. Although prior work has reported near-perfect attack success rates and proposed effective defenses, we find that most findings fail to hold under realistic conditions, exposing a fundamental gap between research and practice. In this paper, we present a systematic, practice-oriented study of backdoor vulnerabilities in VFL, revealing this gap in both methodological design and evaluation practices. We show that existing approaches overlook key practical constraints and therefore rely on unrealistic prior knowledge. Furthermore, these limitations have remained hidden due to poorly designed evaluation practices in the literature. To bridge this gap, we redefine threat models under realistic constraints, propose practical backdoor workflows, and introduce BVBench, a backdoor-centric benchmark that enables fair, practical, and comprehensive evaluation, preloaded with state-of-the-art baselines. BVBench provides strong evidence of the fragility of the current understanding of VFL backdoor risks and establishes a foundation for steering research toward uncovering practical vulnerabilities and developing more meaningful defenses.

Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases. VICs are essential for determining the full range of vulnerable software versions. Existing vulnerability datasets suffer from limited programming language coverage, restricted patch complexity, and narrow project scope. Through our dual annotation by human experts and an agentic workflow, we create a benchmark - VICBench - of 100 verified VICs for 100 CVEs across 88 projects in Python, Java, and C++, covering 48 CWE types. VICBench features complex real-world vulnerability fixes averaging 38.6 lines and corresponding VICs of 252.5 lines - significantly larger than prior work. Our evaluation shows that state-of-the-art algorithms V-SZZ and LLM4SZZ achieve only 33.3%-40.1% F1, confirming that using existing approaches still entails significant manual effort. VICBench enables robust evaluation of vulnerability detection approaches.

Large language model (LLM) agents integrated with external tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injections embedded in environmental states. However, existing studies largely rely on manually implemented or reused environments, stochastic LLM-based tool simulation, and predefined injection locations, limiting scalable security research across broader domains. To bridge this gap, we propose ToolHazard, a scalable adversarial environment synthesis framework that reduces human engineering and supports expansion with additional seed domains and compute. Through an Environment Simulator, an Attacker Agent, and a User Simulator, ToolHazard synthesizes executable stateful environments, discovers viable injection points and generates environment-specific payloads, and constructs state-grounded long-horizon tasks. Based on ToolHazard, we build ToolHazard-Bench for stress-testing agents under complex workflows and diverse environmental attacks. Experiments reveal substantial agent vulnerabilities and show that injection timing and placement affect attack effectiveness. Moreover, ToolHazard-generated alignment data improves security on both ToolHazard-Bench and AgentDojo while preserving benign task utility.

IoT firmware vulnerability detection remains challenging due to heterogeneous firmware ecosystems, resource-constrained platforms, and limitations in existing benchmarks. Many datasets are synthetic or general-purpose and lack human-verified, contamination-screened annotations, limiting evidence on cross-corpus generalization across training sources, model architectures, and curriculum strategies. To address this gap, this paper introduces IoTVulBench, a human-verified benchmark for cross-corpus firmware vulnerability detection. IoTVulBench-Core was constructed from GitHub repositories, validated by three expert reviewers, and evaluated on a contamination-screened held-out target across five model architectures, two tuning methods, and three curriculum strategies, with ensemble, distillation, and robustness analyses. Models trained on IoTVulBench achieved the highest MCC among matched single-source datasets, reaching 0.58 versus 0.44 for PrimeVul and 0.39 for D2A. Staged curriculum learning increased MCC to 0.69, while a diversity-optimized ensemble achieved 0.73, improving by 0.42 MCC over the strongest reference comparator, a static analyzer at 0.31, and by 0.29 over PrimeVul. At a 0.5% false-positive rate, the model missed only 21% of vulnerabilities, compared with 71% for the strongest comparator. It retained 86% of its performance under identifier renaming and demonstrated strong calibration and largely faithful explanations. These findings indicate that domain-matched training data and curriculum design, rather than model scale alone, are key drivers of generalization in firmware vulnerability detection. The results provide a benchmark for future research and deployment-ready configurations for practical IoT security applications.

Large language model (LLM) agents combine language-based reasoning with external tools to perform complex tasks. Adversarial inputs can exploit interactions between the agent and its environment, causing the agent to violate safety policies during execution. Yet existing evaluations often reduce agent safety to a single attack success rate (ASR), collapsing exposure, execution, observation, and adjudication and potentially conflating actual violations with evidence visibility. We introduce REDAgentBench, an executable framework for autonomous red-teaming and faithful measurement. It derives attacks from explicit safety constraints and associated agent-system vulnerabilities, runs them in isolated service sandboxes, and verifies harmful effects from service receipts and final-state changes. The benchmark contains 1,661 cases across five service surfaces. Across six models and three agent harnesses, macro-average ASR is 65.69%; reported ASR varies with harness and evidence view, while evaluation-context disclosure changes execution behavior. In a state-grounded diagnostic cohort, almost one in five confirmed violations with resolved action anchors occurs after the agent states the relevant constraint or risk, revealing a Recognition--Execution Gap. Finally, a training-free policy reminder reduces confirmed violations by more than 70 percentage points in matched replay. These findings show that executable evaluation can improve safety measurement and identify actionable intervention points.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have undergone a shift from stateless conversational interfaces to autonomous agents capable of multi-step planning, tool invocation, code execution, and maintaining persistent memory. When these agents operate with real-world privileges---calling APIs, modifying files, and querying databases---a compromised reasoning step can trigger unauthorized data access, irreversible state changes, or cascading failures, yet the security research community has not kept pace. To quantify the state of the field, we conducted a systematic literature review under PRISMA 2020 guidelines across six databases, screening 743 records and retaining 85 papers (2023--2025) on agentic LLM security. Attack research outpaces defense work by 3.9:1. Perception-layer vulnerabilities (prompt injection, jailbreaking, adversarial perturbations) dominate, accounting for 66% of papers, while action-layer vulnerabilities (tool misuse, code injection, sandbox escape) appear in only 4.7%, misaligned with real-world risk. Code execution security accounts for 3.5%, and tool-augmented agents 12%. We contribute a four-layer taxonomy mapping 13 vulnerability types across perception, brain, action, and interaction layers, and identify seven open problems centered on containment. Agentic LLM insecurity stems from architectural coupling, where weak isolation allows vulnerabilities to propagate across layers.

Leading large language model providers now conceal their models' step-by-step reasoning, or chain-of-thought, to protect intellectual property and limit information leakage. Rather than storing these traces server-side, providers return them to the client as blocks of encrypted text, which the client passes back with each subsequent request. Building on prior research, we identify an architectural vulnerability: these encrypted blocks are fully compatible and interchangeable across different sessions, users, and models within a provider's ecosystem. We exploit this compatibility to develop a scalable decryption jailbreak. By injecting an encrypted reasoning trace from a given model into a weaker, and less safeguarded model from the same provider, we force it to decode and output the trace verbatim in plaintext, without ever jailbreaking the more capable model directly. This vulnerability enables four distinct attack vectors. First, it circumvents anti-distillation mechanisms, allowing adversaries to extract a proprietary model's reasoning, as we demonstrate across Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. Second, it allows for large-scale private data extraction. Developers frequently share session logs publicly, unaware of contents of the encrypted blocks. By decoding 315,320 reasoning blocks scraped from public repositories, we recovered 367 Personally Identifiable Information (PII) artifacts and 182 credentials. Third, it inadvertently reveals hazardous information hidden within the reasoning process, even in cases where the model's final, visible output safely rejects a malicious request. Fourth, attackers can leverage this flaw to execute invisible prompt injections, embedding malicious payloads entirely within encrypted blocks to poison public agentic rollouts. Following responsible disclosure, we propose concrete cryptographic and system-level mitigations to secure client-side reasoning.

In the era of large language models (LLMs), attackers often manipulate natural language to elicit unsafe or harmful outputs, creating a new natural language attack surface unique to LLM-based systems, where attacks directly exploit explicit linguistic cues in user prompts to bypass the safety mechanism of LLMs. However, such attacks can often be mitigated by existing safety alignment algorithms. On the other hand, human language is inherently grounded in pragmatics, necessitating typical context to interpret language, e.g., world knowledge, social norms. However, such contexts are often implicit because they are not directly expressed in human language and are not sufficiently leveraged in safety alignment, creating a fundamental mismatch between human language interpretation and safety alignment approaches. In this paper, we demonstrate that this mismatch exposes vulnerabilities in LLMs. We refer to this vulnerability as the pragmatic attack surface, which can be exploited to achieve high attack success rates. The experimental results demonstrate that our proposed approach outperforms baseline attack methods across various open-source and closed-source models by a substantial margin.

Real-world cyberattacks often require sustained progress across multiple hosts and network segments, making multi-hop cyber ranges essential infrastructure for studying and improving LLM agents' ability to sustain complete attack chains. Prior work has scaled isolated vulnerability tasks and constructed multi-host scenarios from manually specified vulnerability semantics. However, they are still unable to automatically orchestrate the growing supply of vulnerability environments into end-to-end validated multi-hop ranges. To this end, we present RangeFactory, an automated cyber-range orchestration framework that constructs multi-hop cyber ranges at scale from isolated vulnerability environments. RangeFactory formulates range construction as dependency resolution: it extracts dependency information from agents' actual attacks against real vulnerabilities, resolves known dependencies through template-guided orchestration, and uses end-to-end attack execution to validate runtime dependencies that emerge after composition. Using RangeFactory, we construct RangeBench with 1,148 validated range instances spanning 287 distinct attack chains and evaluate frontier attack agents across attack depth, network scale, and task information. Among runs that compromise the entry vulnerability, 24.5-47.0% still fail to complete the remaining attack path, revealing a substantial sustained-compromise gap between establishing an initial foothold and completing a multi-hop attack. RangeFactory further produces a corpus of 5,541 outcome-annotated multi-hop attack trajectories, providing execution data for attack-process analysis and future agent training.

Diffusion Large Language Models (DLLMs) replace autoregressive next-token prediction with iterative parallel denoising, yet their internal safety mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate DLLMs both as targets and as adversaries, exposing mechanistic vulnerabilities in diffusion-based alignment. We first show that safety alignment in DLLMs remains sparse and transferable across architectures. DLLMs initialized from autoregressive predecessors inherit the same mechanistic safety footprint as their source models, enabling transfer attacks via direct safety neuron mapping and pruning. Self-pruning increases attack success rates (ASR) from 2.6% to 73.8% on LLaDA and from 1.9% to 86.6% on Dream, while transfer pruning from Qwen2.5 increases ASR from 1.9% to 73.2% on Dream and from 7.0% to 86.3% on Fast-dLLM. Building on these findings, we introduce SN-Guided Diffusion, a fully offline black-box jailbreak framework that steers the diffusion process away from safety-triggering regions using a weighted safety neuron loss, which achieves near-perfect prompt separability (AUROC = 1.0 for benign-vs-jailbreak discrimination). Across multiple open and proprietary targets, our method achieves a transfer ASR of up to 77.1% on Llama-3-8B-Instruct, 86.9% on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, and 74.3% against Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite, while requiring only 20 generation episodes per prompt. Compared to prior jailbreaking frameworks, our method achieves competitive transferability with orders-of-magnitude lower generation cost. Our codebase is available at https://github.com/ellyoana/sn-guided-diffusion.

Despite recent advances, frontier large language model (LLM) agents remain limited in discovering and patching complex vulnerabilities in real-world software. Generally available agents can already aid attackers, who only need to find one exploitable weakness, while defenders must continuously identify and patch all vulnerabilities across fast-growing codebases. Stronger defensive agents would help close this gap, yet the scarcity of security training data with reproducible build and execution environments remains a bottleneck. We present CyberForge, a framework that synthesizes executable, repository-level security training data by injecting vulnerabilities into real C/C++ projects. It validates each instance dynamically: the injected build must pass the project's unit tests, and generated proof-of-vulnerability (PoV) must trigger on the injected build and not on the clean one. CyberForge is not limited by the availability of disclosed vulnerabilities, therefore it can scale in comparison to data augmentation techniques which rely on historic CVE data. The resulting corpus holds 1034 validated vulnerabilities across 80 projects and 63 weakness categories, with edit locality similar to real CVE patches under a real-versus-real noise floor. Fine-tuning on trajectories collected over this corpus improves SEC-bench patch repair by +3.3 to +14.7 points, in all six configurations of three model scales and two teachers, with the 31B student reaching its GPT-5.4-mini teacher, 72.7% against 74.0%. These gains generalize out of distribution to PatchEval, a corpus containing other programming languages, where every configuration also improves and the 31B student passes its teacher.

Existing guidance identifies excessive agency, excessive permission, weak task-bound authorization, and inadequate agent controls as important risks. Control frameworks also describe capabilities for constraining, authorizing, observing, validating, and responding to agent activity. Yet security programs still need a way to manage persistent deployed instances that span components and outlive any one event. We propose the agentic posture vulnerability (APV) as a task-conditioned vulnerability-management abstraction: a durable record for a composed agent-control exposure. One posture may produce different runtime manifestations across tasks; APV links those manifestations to the invariant posture and remains open until authority is narrowed, a missing control is added, risk is accepted, or closure is verified. APV is not proposed as a new root-cause class of risk; it operationalizes existing excessive-agency, authorization, and control-composition weaknesses. We distinguish APVs from CVE-addressable product defects, OWASP Excessive Agency, Agent Baseline control outcomes, and the runtime authorization-execution gap. We then provide a field vignette, a thresholded definition, six recurring APV patterns, a vulnerability lifecycle, a minimum record, a control-and-closure matrix, tooling implications, and a testable research agenda.

Autonomous AI agent platforms differ substantially in architecture, security, tool integration, execution, autonomy, and deployment, yet the field lacks a common classification scheme for comparing these design choices. We propose ASTELD, an operational six-axis classification framework for autonomous AI agents: Architecture pattern, Security posture, Tool integration model, Execution paradigm, Level of autonomy and human control, and Deployment topology. ASTELD is constructed by synthesizing prior agent taxonomies with observable platform properties and explicit category-assignment rules. We evaluate its discriminative and explanatory utility by mapping eight representative frameworks and by using OpenClaw as an in-depth case study. The resulting profiles separate all eight platforms under their dominant configurations and reveal three cross-platform patterns: a security-accessibility diagonal, strong execution-architecture coupling, and capability convergence with persistent architectural differentiation. We further classify 50+ OpenClaw derivatives and find that innovation concentrates on the Security, Execution, and Deployment axes, indicating that ASTELD can explain where ecosystem fragmentation occurs. The OpenClaw case study also supplies a six-category vulnerability taxonomy, evidence from five institutional assessments, and adoption and governance analyses that connect platform coordinates to observed risks. These results position ASTELD as a reproducible method for comparing agent platforms, identifying unoccupied design regions, guiding framework selection, and organizing future empirical research. The analysis also exposes a consequential empty region: none of the evaluated systems combines local-first deployment with enterprise-grade security.

Just like software and hardware, business processes are susceptible to vulnerabilities that can lead to product quality issues, delays, and increased costs. Business process vulnerabilities can arise from a variety of sources, including conflicting requirements, ambiguous documentation, invalid measurement spec-ifications, omission of quality checks, or implementations that differ from speci-fications. MIRABELLE is a system that identifies and characterizes business logic (BL) vulnerabilities from available business process representations, in-cluding ISO 9000/9001 documentation, user guides, work instructions, and pro-cess execution logs. MIRABELLE leverages recent advances in AI/ML to pro-cess available business process documentation and generate attributed graph rep-resentations of the business logic that can be processed using both graph and for-mal logic approaches for identifying potential vulnerabilities. However, extract-ing the business logic (e.g., operation execution sequences, decisions, input/out-put resources) from mostly natural language artifacts is challenging due to the required domain expertise, inherent process complexity, and the sometimes very large volumes of information. This paper focuses on our experimentation with Large Language Models (LLMs) and their role within MIRABELLE. We report on the performance of several LLMs across vital stages of vulnerability detection, from grammatical and technical error-flagging in short phrasings, to complete process structure recovery and extraction.

Vulnerability localization is a fundamental step in software security, requiring models to reason over large codebases and iteratively identify vulnerable implementations. We present Antares, a family of compact language models (350M, 1B, and 3B parameters) for agentic vulnerability localization. Based on IBM Granite base models, Antares is trained through a two-stage pipeline that combines supervised fine-tuning on cybersecurity reasoning and repository exploration data with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards over vulnerable repositories. Across extensive evaluations, Antares-3B approaches GPT-5.5 while outperforming open-weight models over 200x larger in size. The Antares family further enables fast, low-cost local inference, completing a full 500-task evaluation sweep in approximately 15 minutes on a single H100 GPU, corresponding to an amortized evaluation time of under 2 seconds and less than $0.002 per task.

Large language models are increasingly used to reason about software vulnerabilities, but their outputs can silently violate domain knowledge, limiting their reliability in safety-critical settings such as medical devices. Prior work either treats that output as a prediction to be scored or constrains it to walks within a single knowledge graph; neither checks whether reasoning over a binary is consistent with an independent body of domain knowledge. We present EntailLLM, which validates each LLM-proposed analyst path by entailment: the path is a traversal of the binary's function call graph, the domain knowledge is represented in a separate graph, and verification aligns the two under temporal annotated logic. Across three CWE classes, four LLMs, three prompting strategies, and seven binaries varying in size from 405 to 12,696 function call-graph nodes, domain knowledge raises pooled entailment from 78% to 98%, with entailment decreasing in only 3% of the experiments. EntailLLM is deployed end-to-end on real medical-device binaries, reaching 98% pooled entailment without per-device tuning. Our system inherits the formal guarantees of generalized annotated logic, providing logical verification of LLM output that is both explainable and grounded in well-defined semantics.

Docker Hub is the registry underneath most container deployments, and a flaw in a widely reused base image is inherited by every image built on it. Prior ecosystem-scale measurements each rely on a single detector, leaving the tool-dependence of their counts unquantified, while the studies that do compare scanners use samples of tens to hundreds of images. We present ChimangoScan, a pipeline that crawls the Docker Hub namespace (12,716,568 repositories, 663.8 billion cumulative pulls), reconstructs the image layer graph (54.4 million IS_BASE_OF edges), ranks images by an exposure score that folds an image's own pull count and those of its entire downstream subtree into one scalar, and scans the 52,895 highest-exposure repositories (84.7% of all recorded pulls) with six independent scanners, yielding 170.4 million findings. Vulnerabilities are near-universal: 96.3% of images carry a known package vulnerability, 93.4% a critical one, and 98.0% at least one CIS Docker Benchmark misconfiguration. The posture a single tool reports is largely an artifact of that tool: of 80.7 million distinct (vulnerability, package) groups, 66.8% are flagged by only one of the three vulnerability scanners and just 2.7% by all three, and the best single scanner recovers 66.9%. TruffleHog flags a secret in 76.9% of images, yet hand-labeling 1,100 random detections finds 99.7% are non-credentials. A single zlib CVE reaches images carrying 47.3% of total corpus exposure and propagates to 1.13 million distinct downstream images, but exposure does not predict how vulnerable an image is. We release the pipeline and the 283 GB dataset.

Multi-agent LLM pipelines orchestrate multiple specialized language model agents into structured workflows where intermediate outputs are passed across agents to solve complex tasks. This design introduces a security gap absent in single-agent settings: once an agent accepts adversarial content, it is propagated as trusted input throughout the pipeline. We argue that this vulnerability stems from the absence of boundary verification, a security primitive that enforces explicit validation of data as it crosses inter-agent boundaries, including content, identity, execution intent, and state integrity. Without such verification, modern pipelines embed implicit trust assumptions that are not adversarially robust, giving rise to structurally distinct attack surfaces (e.g., content injection, agent impersonation, plan deviation, and memory poisoning). Leveraging annotated production traces from the GAIA and SWE-Bench benchmark, we show that these vulnerabilities arise in benign deployments and largely evade existing evaluation frameworks. We further operationalize these failure modes within a controlled multi-agent setting and evaluate them across GPT-5-mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Kimi K2.5 under identical pipeline configurations. The results reveal that attack success aligns with pipeline structure rather than model capability, indicating that adversarial vulnerability is fundamentally an architectural property and motivating a shift toward pipeline-level defenses.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has seen rapid adoption since its November 2024 launch, with over 21,000 server instances detectable on the public internet. We present the first dynamic behavioral security assessment of internet-facing MCP servers, combining passive discovery across eleven data sources (crt.sh, HuggingFace, GitHub, npm, Smithery, PyPI, Censys, FOFA, Shodan, glama.ai, and pulsemcp.com) with active dynamic testing using Corvus, a purpose-built framework implementing 34 test modules covering 10 MCP-specific vulnerability classes. Across four measurement runs spanning July 2026, we confirm 640 production MCP servers and dynamically audit 414, uncovering 68 reportable vulnerabilities including SQL injection, SSRF targeting cloud metadata services, prompt template injection, and path traversal via cursor manipulation. We find that 91.8% of dynamically audited servers lack OAuth authentication, 687 tool instances across confirmed servers expose shell execution capabilities without access controls, and 41.6% of confirmed servers disappear within three days between consecutive measurement runs---indicating rapid deployment cycles without security review. We report on our responsible disclosure pipeline and release Corvus as an open-source framework for MCP security evaluation.

Automated vulnerability repair aims to reduce the time and effort required to patch security flaws from a vulnerability triage report. Recent agentic AI approaches have shown promising results in automated program repair. However, vulnerability repair demands richer program context than general bug repair - context that security engineers routinely assemble in practice but that existing agentic approaches do not engineer. We identify three critical gaps: code-structure context capturing cross-file data flows and memory operation patterns, runtime-execution context revealing crash semantics and memory origins, and commit-history context recovering how fragile code patterns were introduced. We present AgenticRepair, an agentic vulnerability repair framework that addresses the gaps through multi-faceted program context engineering. AgenticRepair orchestrates three specialized LLM subagents to engineer the contexts, which are then embedded into the memory of a dedicated repair subagent for context-conditioned patch synthesis. Evaluated on SEC-Bench comprising 300 real-world instances with sanitizer-based patch verification, AgenticRepair achieves a 73% success rate, substantially outperforming the strongest baseline by 29%. Our ablation study confirms that the three context facets are mutually complementary, and that multi-agent scaffolding and base-model capacity each play an essential role. Collectively, these findings establish multi-faceted program context engineering as a promising design direction for agentic vulnerability repair.

LLM-based analyzers have begun finding real vulnerabilities in mature open-source projects: AISLE's analyzer is credited with more than 280 CVEs across 78 projects, including OpenSSL, curl, and GnuTLS. We introduce HoF-Bench (named after AISLE's public Hall of Fame), a benchmark built from 95 of these public AI-discovered CVEs across eight repositories pinned at vulnerable commits. Analyzers receive source and target-file scope but not CVE identifiers, descriptions, fixes, or expected mechanisms; a detector-blinded frontier-model judge credits only findings that identify the same code path, root cause, attack condition, and impact. A deliberately minimal LLM-based analyzer rediscovers up to 65 of the 95 CVEs (68%) under this strict protocol. No frontier model performs detection anywhere in the study. The ten detector backbones are five open-weight models (21B--284B total parameters, 3--13B active) and five proprietary small or "flash"-tier models. All of them run in the fixed scaffold with four repeated passes, an optional generated-context stage, and a replayable multi-round triage stage (7,600 model--CVE pass records). Difficulty is strongly structured by language; the CVEs missed by every model concentrate in C infrastructure code. HoF-Bench provides a compact test bed for comparing vulnerability scanners, their reliability across repeated runs, and the candidate volume they create. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/aisleinc/HoF-Bench.

Real-world vulnerabilities often span multiple functions, yet most learning-based detectors classify each function in isolation: on a sample of real CVEs, we find that 71.7% of vulnerable functions require evidence from outside the function to be classified correctly. Agentic reinforcement learning (RL) could close this gap by enabling a model to gather that evidence itself, but it lacks a reliable reward, since a reward defined on the final verdict alone can be obtained without performing any investigation. We propose VulAgentRL, an agentic RL framework for interprocedural vulnerability detection built on a Code Property Graph (CPG). The CPG serves two roles: at inference time the policy queries it for callers, callees, dataflow, and other queries, and at training time the same graph verifies the evidence the policy cites. Because every CPG node carries a persistent integer identifier, this verification is an exact comparison rather than a textual match, so the reward credits verdicts that are supported by evidence. We further initialize the policy by distilling teacher investigations, and show that this warm start is necessary, since RL cannot acquire tool-use behavior it never samples. Under a repository-level split that prevents leakage, VulAgentRL outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, including frontier models, on the strict pair-wise-correct metric while issuing fewer tool calls, and its advantage persists on an out-of-distribution corpus and under class imbalance.

Cyber-capable AI agents combine language models with tools, memory, and execution environments to perform multi-step offensive-security tasks. Existing work separately measures cyber capability and catalogs attacks against agent components, but provides less guidance on containing a capable agent within the environments used to evaluate it. This review synthesizes five vulnerability classes at that boundary: multi-step offensive chains, objectives that conflict with sandbox boundaries, supply-chain and credential exposure, persistent command-and-control, and the speed of automated action. We use two separate preliminary incident records: the reported July 2026 Hugging Face/OpenAI evaluation breach and Anthropic's subsequent three-incident evaluation review. A comparative evidence protocol distinguishes record-specific factual claims from the shared systems lesson: the evaluation environment is itself part of the security boundary. Across the taxonomy and records, we examine controls for containment, privilege separation, provenance, and responder access, including the dual-use problem that defensive artifacts may also enable misuse. The review identifies practical priorities for evaluating cyber capability together with the security of the environment in which that capability is exercised.

Machine-learning services increasingly rely on public data, third-party providers, and outsourced training, creating opportunities for data-poisoning attacks that implant persistent malicious behavior while preserving benign utility. However, existing backdoor studies largely evaluate exact trigger reuse, training-exposed trigger diversity, or variations along predefined transformation axes. They therefore leave a critical blind spot: whether a backdoor learned from one training-time trigger can generalize to an inference-time trigger family absent from victim training. We formulate this problem as backdoor generalization under training--inference trigger shift and introduce Lilith, a black-box anchor-to-family framework. Using only disjoint surrogate resources, Lilith first induces a compact target-side vulnerability with a single training anchor, then constructs a bounded inference-only family that preserves the anchor-induced representation geometry. We characterize this mechanism through anchor clearance and family reach, deriving sufficient conditions for family-wise target preservation under local regularity and bounded surrogate--victim discrepancy. Experiments across datasets, architectures, poisoning rates, and defenses show that Lilith achieves high family-wise attack success with limited utility degradation and a small trigger generalization gap. Additional analyses show that family activation depends on representation alignment rather than the proposal mechanism, exposing a broader threat overlooked by exact-trigger evaluation.

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.

The original ALPHA benchmark introduced a taxonomy-aware penalty for evaluating CWE-level vulnerability prediction in Python and proposed that the penalty could theoretically also serve as a training signal. This paper provides that validation. We compare three delivery mechanisms: supervised fine-tuning, a dual-head classification loss, and reinforcement learning with a dense reward derived from the normalised penalty. We find that supervised approaches consistently regress below the zero-shot baseline under distribution shift, while GRPO succeeds. Our best policy reduces the cumulative ALPHA penalty of Qwen2.5-Coder-7B on Security Hardening and Adversarial Testing (SVEN) dataset by 27.9% under greedy decoding, and by 25.5% under sampled decoding(p = 0.005, Welch's t-test), reaching statistical parity with its 4.5x larger zero-shot teacher. We conclude that the value of a hierarchical penalty as a training signal depends largely on the directness of its delivery.

Large language models operating in emotionally sensitive contexts face a structural trilemma: when users in vulnerable states request information that may reinforce maladaptive attribution, current response architectures resolve the tension through protective restriction, uninflected facilitation, or unintegrated co-presence of both imperatives -- each preserving one objective at the cost of the other. Administering a three-turn escalating vulnerability vignette to three commercial LLMs (900 sessions across material, relational, and somatic status-proxy variants) and coding responses with two binary indices (VCC/VCI), we characterize a previously undocumented failure mode we term adaptive capitulation: the model validates the social injustice underlying the user's distress before pivoting to detailed facilitation of the very acquisition it nominally discouraged. We show that the trilemma is structural rather than incidental, and propose Minimal Reattributive Sufficiency (MRS), an architecture-neutral design principle that embeds a single reattributive cue within an otherwise validating response, preserving a pathway toward autonomous reattribution without contesting the user's stated goal.

Purpose: Understanding how much of routine policing involves vulnerable people could inform resourcing, training, and multi-agency response, yet administrative data provide limited insight. We explore whether an LLM-based classification pipeline, developed on open-source US police data, can be adapted to estimate the prevalence of four vulnerability indicators - mental ill health, substance misuse, alcohol dependence, and homelessness - in UK police incident narratives, and when outputs can be treated as defensible measurements. Methods: We analyse nearly 3,000 de-identified incident logs from a UK police force, using a multi-stage pipeline combining repeated model inference, label aggregation, structured human review, and statistical correction. The pipeline runs on a locally hosted open-weight LLM, reflecting the secure environments police must work in. Results: LLMs can produce meaningful, if imperfect, prevalence estimates at scale. Mental ill health indicators are present in approximately one in five incidents, with lower prevalence for other indicators. However, naive LLM deployment is unreliable: single-pass classifications are unstable, and aggregated outputs systematically over-assign indicators relative to human judgement. Correcting these biases required substantial human input and statistical adjustment, leaving considerable uncertainty. Conclusions: While LLMs can extract information from unstructured police data, their outputs cannot be treated as valid measurements without careful methodological support. At the population level, defensible estimates are achievable but resource-intensive; at the individual level, errors remain frequent and unpredictable, limiting suitability for operational decisions. This study highlights both the potential and the constraints of LLM-based measurement in applied settings.

Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) rely on interconnected software and hardware components, including sensors, Electronic Control Units, in-vehicle infotainment systems, and telematics units, where vulnerabilities can compromise assets, users, and vehicle operations. These vulnerabilities are commonly documented as plain text in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database; however, security practitioners require structured information about affected assets, types of weaknesses, and attack behaviors to effectively mitigate the risks from these vulnerabilities. To this end, we evaluate open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating Structured Threat Information Expression (STIX), a well-known structured format for representing threat information, for CAV-related CVEs. We construct a dataset called CAV-STIXGen that maps CAV vulnerability descriptions to STIX domain objects (SDO), STIX relationship objects (SRO), Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE), and MITRE ATT&CK techniques mappings. Using this dataset, we evaluated 11 open-weight LLMs (4B to 120B parameters) across various prompting strategies and temperatures. Single-model configurations achieve F1 scores of 0.94 for SDO, 0.63 for SRO, and 0.99 for CWE mapping, while complete MITRE ATT&CK mapping remains challenging. In a multi-agent setup, Gemma-4-31B and Codestral-22B achieve F1 scores of 0.91 for SDOs and 0.43 for SROs, respectively. Lastly, we analyze CWE and MITRE ATT&CK co-occurrences to identify recurring threat patterns in the CAV domain, demonstrating how AI-assisted vulnerability-to-STIX translation can automate threat intelligence and prioritize defense in transportation security.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a well-documented gap between latent capability and consistent activation: the router hypothesis posits that models possess the knowledge to solve a task but lack reliable internal routing to activate it. Prior work in formal mathematical reasoning (SAIR, Cázares 2026) reports that structural priors (cheatsheets) raise in-distribution performance dramatically, yet collapse below the zero-shot baseline out-of-distribution (OOD) -- and that iterative recalibration amplifies rather than corrects the collapse. We test whether this phenomenon is cross-domain by reproducing the SAIR design in source-code security vulnerability detection, evaluating three LLMs (GPT-OSS-120B, Llama-3.3-70B, Gemma-4-31B) across three vulnerability categories (CWE-798, CWE-284, and the non-CWE N+1 anti-pattern) spanning syntactic, contextual, and semantic complexity, then transferring cheatsheet-augmented prompts to real-world CVE data from VUDENC (CWE-89, CWE-22). Our findings replicate and extend SAIR: (F1) structural priors lift semantic-vulnerability recall from 20.0% to 100.0% across all models; (F2) zero-shot performance degrades along a semantic complexity gradient; (F3) the same cheatsheets that saturate synthetic performance amplify distribution-shift collapse on real CVE data (CWE-89: 100% synthetic F1 to 48.9% on VUDENC, -51.1pp); (F5) iterative recalibration produces a v2 cheatsheet that performs worse than v1 on real data, mirroring SAIR's AN45c-vs-AN38 finding. These results provide evidence that the cross-distribution trade-off surface documented in SAIR generalises to code security, and that the router hypothesis is cross-domain. We argue the structural nature of the collapse motivates distribution-aware training over prompt calibration. Code and evaluation scripts: https://github.com/bytepro-ai/bitcoder-v2-research

Qubes OS is a revealing case for security measurement because its architecture makes component boundaries security-relevant. We present a protocol-driven longitudinal analysis of 109 public Qubes Security Bulletins (QSBs, 2011--2025), the official Qubes-maintained Xen Security Advisory (XSA) tracker, and a secondary vulnerability-event sensitivity series. The study measures the public advisory record rather than latent vulnerability incidence or realized compromise. The methodology combines audited deterministic component attribution, change-point analysis, overdispersion checks, severity-proxy weighting, censoring sensitivity, documentary latency lower bounds, and baseline-aware evaluation of vulnerability discovery models (VDMs). The results show persistent upstream dependence in that public record. On the official tracker, 113 of 464 XSAs affect Qubes; under primary labeling, 87 of 109 QSBs (79.8%) are attributable to Xen, CPU/microarchitectural, or other upstream components rather than Qubes-core logic, with similar results under weighted views. Change-point analyses identify 2015Q1 as the dominant break in the quarterly advisory series, while post-2018 annual disclosure rates are statistically flat. Poisson inferences are stable under dispersion diagnostics and negative-binomial sensitivity checks. The attribution codebook performs well in a stratified 30-QSB audit, and S-shaped VDMs fit descriptively but do not significantly outperform a rolling-mean baseline in short-horizon forecasts. Overall, the Qubes public advisory record appears stable, but not quiet: disclosure activity plateaus at a higher level than in the earliest years, while the observed burden remains concentrated in upstream trust anchors.

AI software development agents are increasingly capable of modifying infrastructure and security critical systems, creating risks where an agent completes its assigned task while covertly weakening safeguards through actions such as broadening permissions, degrading logging, or introducing persistence mechanisms. While frontier laboratories may deploy sophisticated monitoring pipelines, many organizations and individual users adopting coding agents lack the resources and governance maturity required to maintain complex learned monitor ensembles. We study this problem as infrastructure level sabotage under task success in the infrastructure-as-code setting from ControlArena and compare trained and untrained monitors across synchronous and asynchronous deployment modes. We introduce an Information Flow Graph (IFG) monitor that analyzes structural security regressions using control-flow and data-flow graph diffs alongside raw code diffs. In asynchronous evaluation, an untrained git diff monitor misses 11.6% attacks at 1% false positive rate auditing budget, our untrained IFG monitor reduces this to 3.5%, and the trained Async RF monitor achieves below 1%. Unlike the trained Async RF monitor, IFG can also operate synchronously as a pre-deployment safeguard that blocks suspicious infrastructure changes before execution or merge. In synchronous mode, IFG realtime rollback reduces joint main task and covert task success from 74.4% to 0.0% with no measurable reduction in legitimate task completion. These results suggest that untrained structural monitors provide a practical and auditable path toward democratizing deployment safety for organizations seeking trustworthy adoption of advanced AI agents.

We investigate which language model evasion attacks survive state-of-the-art adversarial fine-tuning, developing strategies that sweep the top 5 positions on the ELOQUENT 2026 Voight-Kampff leaderboard. While adversarial fine-tuning trivially closes the 2025 winning evasion recipes, we uncover a fundamental asymmetry in detector vulnerability: pushing generated text out of the detector's training distribution reliably defeats adversarial detection, whereas pulling it into the distribution (e.g., mimicking human training data) fails completely. Exploiting this, we introduce two novel out-of-distribution attack families - cross-decade register attacks and modernist stream-of-consciousness form. Both strategies easily bypass adversarial closure, achieving up to approximately 50x higher fool rates than previous methods while preserving naturalness. Furthermore, experiments show that the obvious deployer countermeasure (augmenting training data with period prose) fails to close the vulnerability. Our findings show that the tested detector families, including adversarially fine-tuned ones, exhibit persistent vulnerabilities under structural out-of-distribution shifts, a mechanism that directly powers our leading competition performance.

Cybersecurity is the practice of protecting systems, networks, and data from digital attacks. Cyberpsychology (CPSY) is defined as the use of psychology to enhance cybersecurity applications. Since the early 2010s, the evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasingly integrated with CPSY, leveraging advanced data analysis to decode the distinct personality traits and behavioral patterns of victims, attackers, and defenders. In this systematic literature review (SLR), we carefully analyze 34 collected research studies of AI usage in cyberpsychology (AI-CPSY) using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology. The review presents a comprehensive taxonomy of the cyber-security applications, the AI methodologies used, and the psychological concepts employed across the studies . We sort the research studies into four cybersecurity applications: Anomaly Detection (AD), Vulnerability Risk Prediction (VRP), Security Awareness Training (SAT), and Authentication/Identity Verification (AIV). Within each application area, studies are further sorted according to the AI method used including machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), natural language processing (NLP), and reinforcement learning (RL). Furthermore, the review identifies the most commonly utilized psychological concepts, quantify the datasets used in the field, and present their current implementation and deployment status. At last, it detect research gaps, present open challenges, and deduce the trending and most effective and emerging methodologies used across the AI-CPSY landscape.

Filesystem isolation in container ecosystems is often weakened by cross-boundary path misresolution, causing path traversal (PaTra) vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities stem from insecure host-container interactions and have become increasingly pervasive as cloud systems mount shared resources, such as GPUs and agent workspaces, into containers to support AI workloads. Existing defenses remain inadequate. Kernel-level protections are intrusive, can destabilize system calls, and have therefore not been accepted into the Linux mainline. Detection methods rely on static rule matching or manual code auditing. Static rules can flag path-related functions but fail to capture the semantics needed to determine whether a host-container interaction exists, causing many false positives. Manual review requires domain expertise, making it costly, inefficient, and difficult to scale. To address this threat, we present Bulkhead, an automated framework that integrates large language models (LLMs) with formal methods for semantic vulnerability discovery and remediation. Bulkhead uses a multi-agent system to identify and repair PaTra vulnerabilities through multi-dimensional knowledge patterns generalized from known cases. It first applies high-risk functional patterns to locate entry points for cross-boundary interactions in containerized code, then uses call-chain patterns to recover the corresponding execution paths at suitable depth. The Detection pipeline analyzes these call chains against the application scenarios and threat model, identifying vulnerabilities such as missing security checks and TOCTOU flaws in cross-boundary interactions, and generating proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits for validation. These PoCs then guide patch generation. To ensure remediation correctness, the Patch pipeline performs assertion-driven verification using predefined model-checking templates.

Given a vulnerability-fixing commit, trigger localization asks which specific statement turns the vulnerable program state into a concrete unsafe operation. This question is harder than binary vulnerability detection because the answer demands interprocedural, causal reasoning: in a substantial fraction of real-world CVEs the triggering statement lies several call layers outside the patched function, beyond the reach of static rule sets and pattern-matching language models alike. We present AutoTrace, an agentic pipeline that localizes vulnerability triggers by exploring a code property graph layer by layer, with LLM agents deciding where to look next and deterministic admissibility gates deciding what evidence is required before a trigger can be reported. Agents never accept a trigger on their own authority; every reported trigger is backed by explicit evidence drawn from the graph, so the pipeline covers both intra- and interprocedural vulnerabilities without relying on ungrounded model judgment. On the full InterPVD benchmark, AutoTrace reaches 75.0% VulnHit and 80.8% FuncHit, surpassing the prior state of the art on the same corpus. Building on the same machinery, we construct SinkTrace-Bench, a dataset that exposes each vulnerability as a source-to-sink (S2S) causal chain from attacker-controlled input through propagation to the dangerous operation, drawn from matched vulnerable and patched program states. It comprises 1,542 verifier-confirmed, perfectly balanced vulnerable/safe samples whose label fidelity we audit against expert annotations. Benchmarking frontier LLMs on it, we find that even the strongest struggle to separate the matched pairs, exposing the causal-reasoning gap that trigger localization targets. Artifact available at https://github.com/Erroristotle/AutoTrace.

Classifying cybersecurity vulnerabilities using the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) taxonomy is challenging due to extreme class imbalance and strong hierarchical dependencies among weakness categories. Although oversampling techniques such as Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) and Adaptive Synthetic Sampling (ADASYN) are widely adopted to mitigate class imbalance, their effectiveness for hierarchical CWE text classification remains largely unexplored. This paper proposes a Hierarchy-Aware RoBERTa framework that explicitly incorporates CWE structural information through learnable parent-class embeddings, preserving taxonomic consistency. Our experiments demonstrate that synthetic interpolation in high-dimensional embedding spaces violates the inherent parent-child constraints of the CWE hierarchy, offering only marginal benefits for classical ML models while consistently degrading deep learning architectures. Evaluated on a CWE Research Concept dataset, the proposed model achieves a weighted F1-score of 0.76 without data augmentation, outperforming all baselines with notable gains on minority classes, including the Class category whose F1-score improved from 0.40 to 0.60 over the BERT baseline. Our results suggest that hierarchy-aware representation learning is a more principled alternative to oversampling for structured vulnerability classification.

Production LLM agents such as Claude Code and Codex operate over untrusted content, files, commands, and workspace state, making safety failures directly actionable. Red-teaming must therefore keep pace with evolving models and tools. Existing approaches mainly optimize attack success and preserve artifacts such as benchmarks, payloads, or attack programs, which record where attacks succeed but not the enabling conditions behind unsafe agent behavior. We study automated red-teaming for production LLM agents using one agentic research environment to discover reusable vulnerability knowledge about another. We present AHA, a falsifiable discovery loop that proposes a vulnerability hypothesis, constructs a falsifier, instantiates a valid attack, executes it in a sandboxed harness, reflects on the trajectory, and promotes confirmed findings into a Vulnerability Concept Graph (VCG). Each concept links an attacker-facing surface to an unsafe trajectory through a claim, enabling condition, falsifier, transfer prediction, and supporting evidence. Across Claude Code and Codex on three scenarios covering direct and indirect attacks, the discovered concepts reveal a reusable vulnerability core across models and agents. A frozen VCG requires no further search and outperforms the strongest frozen discovery baseline by 14.2 percentage points under the same single-shot protocol, while transferring across scenarios and attack channels. The resulting VCG provides an auditable artifact for production safety teams to inspect vulnerabilities, validate patches, and accumulate reusable safety knowledge. Our code is available at https://github.com/henrymao2004/Auto-research-red-teaming-in-sleep.

AI code assistants are transforming software development, but their implications for software security remain a major concern, particularly in the context of security APIs. These APIs are critical for safeguarding software systems, yet their complexity often leads to incorrect use and serious vulnerabilities. Developing an evidence-based understanding of how AI assistants influence developers' use of these APIs is therefore essential for informing effective mitigation strategies. While a few user studies have examined the broader impact of AI assistants on software vulnerabilities, the use of security APIs remains unexplored from a developer-centered perspective. This study addresses this gap by presenting the first empirical investigation into how AI code assistants affect professional developers' use of security APIs. We conducted a study with 44 developers who completed security API programming tasks with and without GitHub Copilot assistance. Our findings show that, while Copilot improves functional correctness and marginally reduces certain insecure patterns, it does not significantly improve secure API usage. We also found that developers rarely raised security concerns when engaging with Copilot, and many did not recognize that their final implementations remained insecure. Finally, we offer recommendations for enhancing security awareness among developers and propose future research directions to support safer AI-assisted software development.

Agentic coding tools are increasingly used to make autonomous repository-level changes to real-world projects. Prior work has largely evaluated these contributions at the pre-merge stage, through outcomes such as pull request acceptance and review effort. Far less is known about what happens to agentic code post-merge. Yet merge success alone does not reveal whether a contribution will remain stable or require bug fixes and other corrective maintenance downstream. We conduct a longitudinal empirical analysis of agentic and human contributions across 182 repositories, tracking their post-merge fate over time, characterizing the intent of subsequent modifications, and analyzing the defects and vulnerabilities they introduce. While the overall maintenance rates are similar, agentic contributions require significantly higher rates of corrective maintenance and introduce more security weaknesses and dependency vulnerabilities. We also find statistically significant evidence that agentic maintenance burden is associated with repository characteristics. In particular, each 10 percentage-point increase in a project's no-review rate is associated with roughly a 6% increase in agentic maintenance burden on average. As coding agents become pervasive in software development, our findings highlight the need to evaluate and design agentic tools not only to produce mergeable changes, but to produce contributions that remain secure and maintainable.

Internet of Things (IoT) systems are inherently vulnerable due to constrained hardware, outdated firmware, and insecure default configurations, creating a need for scalable and adaptive security testing approaches. While recent adoptions of Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated promise in penetration testing and Capture-the-Flag (CTF) environments, their application to IoT specific vulnerabilities remains unexplored. This paper presents an autonomous multi-agent framework, referred to as Vulnerability EXploitation using AI Agents (VEXAIoT), for vulnerability discovery and exploitation in IoT environments using LLM-based reasoning and offensive security tools. The framework combines a vulnerability detection agent and an attack execution agent to perform reconnaissance, plan attack sequences, and execute exploits against vulnerable IoT services. The system is evaluated in IoTGoat and Metasploitable environments across ten attack scenarios mapped to OWASP IoT vulnerabilities. Experimental results show attack success rate of up to 100% with low token overhead and average execution times under two minutes for most attacks. Across 260 attack executions, VEXAIoT achieves a 95.0% overall success rate, including 94.5% success in IoTGoat and 96.7% success in Metasploitable2. These results demonstrate the potential for LLM-driven agents to automate IoT vulnerability assessment and offensive security workflows in controlled environments

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities but remain highly vulnerable to adversarial prompts and jailbreak attacks. Existing approaches primarily analyze these failures through input-output behaviors or attribution methods, offering limited insight into how adversarial perturbations alter the model's internal reasoning. Consequently, the mechanisms underlying unsafe or incorrect behaviors remain poorly understood. We introduce a mechanistic framework for diagnosing LLM vulnerabilities using paired internal computation graphs, which represent prompt-specific inference as structured causal interactions among latent features. By constructing and aligning computation graphs for clean and attacked prompts, we reveal that adversarial attacks induce systematic transformations of internal reasoning, including suppression of safety-relevant components, emergence of attack-specific features, and rerouting of computation paths. Building on this representation, we propose a unified framework that (i) decomposes computation into invariant, suppressed, and emergent structures, (ii) identifies recurring vulnerability motifs associated with failure modes, and (iii) performs causal interventions on nodes, paths, and subgraphs to directly evaluate their contributions to attack success. This enables a transition from descriptive attribution to causal diagnosis of model failures. Experiments across multiple open-source LLMs and diverse adversarial and jailbreak benchmarks demonstrate that structural deviations in internal computation graphs strongly correlate with unsafe behaviors. Furthermore, targeted interventions on identified vulnerability motifs improve model robustness, establishing internal computation graphs as a principled foundation for understanding, diagnosing, and mitigating LLM vulnerabilities.

Assigning Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) categories to Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) records remains an important but largely manual step in vulnerability analysis. We study this task as a text classification problem and compare two modelling choices: a \emph{multi-class} formulation that predicts a single CWE per CVE and a \emph{multi-label} formulation that allows multiple assignments. Three transformer encoders (BERT Base, SecureBERT, and CySecBERT) are evaluated on three nested label spaces (83, 47, and 25 classes). Multi-class training achieves higher macro-F1 across all settings, although the gap to multi-label narrows from 21 to 2 percentage points as the label space shrinks. Post-hoc threshold optimisation on the multi-label side closes this gap on the 25-class setting. Confusion analysis shows that the dominant misclassification patterns follow the CWE hierarchy and are shared across all three encoders (Pearson $r > 0.92$), which suggests that the error structure is driven more by taxonomy design than by encoder choice. A hierarchy-relaxed evaluation that forgives within-family confusions raises macro-F1 from ${\sim}$81% to ${\sim}$90%, indicating that strict metrics understate branch-level classifier quality. CySecBERT achieves the strongest results overall, with statistically significant gains concentrated in the multi-label setting.

Perceptual quality enhancement of severely compressed videos remains challenging due to complex artifact patterns and substantial information loss. Recent diffusion models have demonstrated strong generative capability for visual restoration, but directly applying them to compressed video often ignores compression degradation characteristics and may introduce structure-inconsistent hallucinations. To address this issue, this paper presents a diffusion-based compressed video enhancement method, named DiffCVE. Coding Prior-enhanced Dual Conditioning (CPDC) branches are designed to jointly model compressed video and coding prior conditions, where coding priors including residuals and motion vectors provide complementary structural and motion guidance during the diffusion denoising process. To make the diffusion process aware of compression severity, a Compression Degradation Semantic Prompting (CDSP) mechanism is introduced to leverage QP-conditioned textual prompts together with LoRA fine-tuning. In addition, a Coding Prior-guided Weighted Fusion (CPWF) module is incorporated into the VAE decoder to fuse VAE encoder and coding prior encoder features with QP-predicted weights. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in improving perceptual quality, especially under severe compression settings. The project page with enhanced video demonstrations is available at https://wqmaker.github.io/projects/DiffCVE/.

Adversarial attacks are crafted data manipulations that aim to deteriorate the outcomes of prediction or decision-making algorithms. In the energy systems literature, adversarial attacks have been studied with a focus on problems regarding the electricity grid. Such problems include forecasting and grid state estimation, where adversarial attacks are also known as false data injection attacks. Only few studies have analyzed the potential impact that adversarial attacks have on the demand side. We analyze how manipulated price forecasts impact the decision-making in industrial demand response. To this end, we design adversarial attacks that aim to deteriorate the output of electricity price forecasting models and solve scheduling optimization problems of energy-intensive production processes using the distorted price forecasts. We make use of a generalized process model to investigate the vulnerability to adversarial attacks for a range of production scheduling problems with different levels of process flexibility. We find that adversarial attacks can erode the profits gained from demand response. However, when perturbations are limited in extent (so that they are hard to detect by the human user), demand response preserves about 90% of its financial advantage compared to steady-state process operation. Further, we find that the impact of adversarial attacks on demand response does not only depend on the magnitude of the perturbations but rather on the orientation of the adversarial perturbations. Therefore, we argue that attack analyses should explicitly incorporate the sensitivities of scheduling optimization models into the attack design to enable more rigorous assessments of decision-making under adversarial attacks.

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.