Security

Capture the Flag (CTF) competitions are among cybersecurity's most effective training grounds, developing practical skill across cryptography, web exploitation, and binary exploitation. Large language models (LLMs) can now solve a growing share of challenges with minimal human input, raising urgent questions about fairness, the validity of rankings, and whether participation still delivers the learning that justifies the effort. This paper reports a mixed-methods study of LLM impact on modern CTFs, combining a synthesis of published benchmarks, including a recent government evaluation, case studies of live competition across three challenge categories, structured observation of the public channels where the community debates AI use, and semi-structured interviews with experienced players and organisers. We map the current human-machine capability boundary by category, showing that easy and intermediate challenges in cryptography, web, and binary exploitation are now reliably automated while narrower sub-categories continue to resist. We find that community disagreement about whether AI should be permitted is downstream of an undeclared prior question: what a competition is for. Against this backdrop we contribute a four-component safeguard framework, combining tiered competition divisions, LLM-resistant challenge design, telemetry used investigatively, and a draft community code of conduct, together with a decision tool that ties the combination of safeguards to a competition's declared purpose. The argument reaches beyond CTFs to any setting in cybersecurity where a demonstrated result is taken as evidence of an underlying ability.

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.

The intersection of artificial intelligence adoption, cybersecurity governance, and public sector institutional constraints has not been examined as a unified analytical problem in the existing literature. Studies address AI cybersecurity risks generically, public sector governance independently, and framework adequacy separately. Existing studies have not integrated these three streams to explain specifically how AI adoption causes cybersecurity governance failure in government organizations, nor test existing governance instruments against AI-specific public sector failure causes. This paper ad-dresses that gap. It proposes a seven-domain typology identifying ten specific AI-driven cyber governance failure causes grounded in public sector institutional analysis. It presents a three-pathway failure model showing how accountability failure, opera-tional resilience failure, and compliance failure interact and reinforce each other. It de-livers a structured coverage matrix testing five major governance frameworks (NIST CSF 2.0, ISO/IEC 27001, COBIT, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001) against the typology, finding that no instrument addresses Shadow AI, speed asymmetry, or gov-ernance vacuum at the operational specificity required for public sector application. The paper introduces speed asymmetry as a named structural construct with a specified mechanism. The framework provides the design specification for an AI-enabled cyber-security maturity model for government organizations.

The recently deployed Entry/Exit System (EES) introduces large-scale biometric verification into European border control, requiring face recognition systems to operate at extremely low false match rates (FMR). While regulatory frameworks define performance targets at the EES Central System level, they do not specify how verification thresholds should be calibrated in practice at the Member State level. In operational settings, obtaining representative real-world data for calibration is often constrained by legal, logistical, and privacy limitations. In this work, we investigate the use of synthetic face data for threshold calibration in document-to-live verification scenarios relevant to border control systems. We analyze the alignment of genuine and impostor score distributions between synthetic and real datasets and evaluate the transferability of calibrated thresholds across domains, with a focus on low-FMR operating points. Our results show that synthetic data can approximate calibration behavior in controlled settings, but fails to reliably generalize to unconstrained conditions due to mismatches in score distribution tails. These discrepancies lead to significant degradation in recognition performance and increased vulnerability to morph-based attacks. We further demonstrate that calibration outcomes are highly dataset-dependent, even across synthetic datasets. Overall, our findings highlight that while synthetic data is useful for system development and preliminary calibration, our results indicate that reliable threshold selection in high-security deployments typically requires validation and adjustment using representative real-world data.

Due to the lack of systematic evaluations, we are not yet able to determine which AI-based Windows malware detector to deploy in production, since existing evaluations (i) differ in terms of data used for both training and testing; (ii) do not consider temporal analysis to showcase whether models withstand the passage of time; (iii) avoid security evaluations with adversarial attacks that could highlight their brittleness against content-injection attacks; and (iv) neglect the computational requirements for deployment, risking slow inference on endpoints. For these reasons, we develop EXE-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark of AI-based Windows malware detectors. EXE-Bench assesses performance, temporal and adversarial robustness, and computational overhead, aggregating them into a single score for direct and fair model comparison. Through EXE-Bench, we highlight how evaluations conducted only after deployment are suboptimal and unable to provide a complete picture of their performance. In particular, through our analysis, we remark how much domain knowledge instilled through feature engineering is still extremely useful in this domain, resisting both time and adversarial attacks, in stark contrast with most of the deep networks that only excel right after deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software development workflows, yet their ability to autonomously generate secure authentication code remains uncertain. This paper evaluates the security architecture of authentication systems generated by five prominent AI coding assistants through a bi-modal assessment framework combining static code analysis and dynamic penetration testing, mapped to NIST SP 800-63B guidelines. The study examines model behavior across four prompting strategies Basic, Secure, NIST-Based, and Reprompting to reflect varying levels of developer guidance. Empirical results demonstrate that code generated from functional or generically secure prompts consistently omits critical protections, particularly concerning brute-force resistance, session management, and robust password handling. While providing explicit, single-shot NIST context significantly improves compliance, the findings reveal that this remains structurally inadequate. Instead, iterative Reprompting: forcing models into a contextual self-auditing loop is strictly required to achieve a comprehensive, defense-in-depth security architecture. Ultimately, this study proves that current AI coding assistants do not produce secure-by-default applications, dictating that enterprise deployments must transition from single-shot prompt engineering to continuous, standards-driven verification pipelines.

Large language models now power autonomous agents capable of complex, multi-step tasks in different environments. Accurate and reliable execution of these tasks requires the agent to predict the results of its actions. Recent research proposes to enhance predictive capabilities via specially trained environment simulators-world models. While world models can improve performance, they can also mislead agents into executing harmful actions, creating significant security and privacy risks. In this paper, we raise security concerns regarding the usage of world models in agentic systems. We discover a range of world model specific vulnerabilities, which can be exploited in terminal-based agents to execute malicious code or extract sensitive data. To facilitate future development, we introduce a security benchmark dataset designed for text-based world models. We argue that some risks are intrinsic to approximate world modeling, and show that attackers can induce mispredictions in agentic pipelines with up to 95% success rate, possibly resulting in unintended command execution, denial of service, drainage of wallet and private information extraction. Finally, we provide practical recommendations for practitioners to mitigate the discovered harms and harden agentic systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, yet their security behavior in realistic development workflows remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often rely on explicitly specified security requirements, failing to capture real-world scenarios where prompts are frequently ambiguous or incomplete. In this paper, we adopt a developer-centric perspective and identify three representative risk scenarios that commonly lead to security vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code: Ambiguous Requirements, Under-Specified Operational Context, and Security--Functionality Conflict. Based on these scenarios, we construct a large-scale benchmark comprising 2,700 test cases, enabling fine-grained evaluation of LLM security under realistic conditions. Extensive evaluation of eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that all models exhibit average vulnerability rates exceeding 56% across risk scenarios. We further demonstrate that security-aware prompting can substantially mitigate these risks, achieving up to 45% improvement.

Agent security is widely treated as a question about action content. Defenses ask whether an instruction looks malicious. Benchmarks ask whether an agent performs a harmful sounding action. \textbf{We argue that agent security is fundamentally a contextual problem, and that the current content based framing systematically misdefines it.} A command to ``delete user data'' might be a routine administrative request or a prompt injection attacking production systems, and the content alone cannot distinguish the two. Authorization context can. Across every injection task in AgentDojo and WASP, the same action is one an authenticated user would plausibly request in a routine workflow, which makes the conflation a structural property of evaluating security through content. We operationalize contextual security through four properties that must hold jointly and be evaluated continuously across the agent's trajectory. Source Authorization asks who issued the command. Task Alignment specifies the agent's authorized objective. Action Alignment evaluates whether each action serves that objective. Data Isolation governs information flows across privilege boundaries. Under this reframing, indirect prompt injection becomes a Source Authorization violation. Snapshot benchmarks are structurally incapable of evaluating Data Isolation. Existing defenses are reorganized around the property they actually approximate. The contextual reframing changes which defenses are coherent, which evaluations measure something useful, and which attack patterns evaluation can see at all.

Microsoft's Active Directory (AD) is a directory service that enables the IT admin to manage security permissions and control access within a Windows domain network. As a core management system in many of organisation, AD has become a primary target for adversaries. While many solutions for hardening attack graphs exist, these efforts fall short in addressing several key practical challenges specific to the AD attack graph. First, existing models often assume the graph is static, whereas a real-world AD environment is highly dynamic. Second, most proposed solutions are limited to the defensive measure of revoking vulnerabilities (edge removal), while more active defence mechanisms are largely unstudied. Third, because not all remediations are implementable, a practical end-to-end model must incorporate system admin feedback into the prioritisation process. This thesis aims to address these limitations by studying and proposing a number of game-theoretic and optimisation-based decision-making models. First, we propose a honeypot/decoy placement model based on the principle of minimising the number of shortest paths and the number of Domain Admin-reachable nodes. Second, building on this model, we introduce a defence strategy that considers the dynamic/temporal nature of the AD graph, where the objective is to find the location to deploy decoys that maximises the worst-case incident response time. Third, we introduce an adaptive prioritisation model that queries each high-risk attack path to the IT administrator for mediation. Finally, we introduce an end-to-end adaptive prioritisation model that minimises the approval effort of the system admin by finding a general adaptive edge-removal policy that generalises the system admin's decisions to edges with similar risk features. We show that the problems underlying all of the contributed models are computationally intractable.

LLM agents increasingly rely on external tools, expanding capability while creating a new security boundary: third-party tools may appear benign at the interface level while embedding unsafe behavior in implementation. Existing defenses rely on weak metadata, collapse characterization and policy judgment into a single decision, or use heuristic/LLM enforcement that lacks deterministic, auditable reasoning over task context and multi-tool composition. This paper presents ToolGuardian, a policy-driven framework for securing agent-tool interactions through pre-admission vetting and task-aware runtime authorization. ToolGuardian uses progressive characterization to convert evidence into structured facts: descriptions capture declared intent, system-call traces expose coarse behavior, mock execution reveals observed effects, and source analysis identifies latent behavior. ToolGuardian's core contribution is an Answer Set Programming (ASP)-based declarative policy layer that reasons explicitly over capabilities, effects, task context, and composition. We compare ASP against heuristic and LLM-based policy realizations using identical inputs and output contracts. We evaluate ToolGuardian on 16 MCP-style tools, including 8 malicious variants derived from real open-source tools, and 20 runtime scenarios. For vetting, ASP reaches a deny-class F1 of 0.86 and 88% accuracy using description, syscall, and observed-effect evidence. For runtime authorization, fully specified realizations classify all scenarios correctly, while ablations show that removing compositional and conformance rules substantially degrades performance.

Large language model (LLM) agents routinely cheat on cybersecurity benchmarks, inflating reported pass rates far beyond genuine capability. Prior audits of Cybench found cheating in 0.3-3.4% of traces, implicating only a handful of models. We present a controlled prompt-ablation study across 22 frontier models from 7 providers on 23 Cybench capture-the-flag (CTF) challenges under three prompt conditions (no anti-cheat, standard, severe). All 1,518 task traces were individually audited through a four-stage pipeline combining LLM-as-a-judge classification, programmatic verification, judge-verifier reconciliation, and human review. We find cheating is far more pervasive than previously estimated: under baseline conditions, 37.1% of passes involved cheating, 21 of 22 models cheated, and scores were inflated by up to 5x. Anti-cheat prompts reduce cheat propensity from 33.0% (baseline) to 17.8% (standard) to 8.5% (severe) without degrading, and sometimes improving, solve rates. However, even under the most restrictive prompt condition, eight models still produced cheated passes, four showed backfire effects, and cheating escalated from web search toward infrastructure probing. We introduce the "solve rate" metric (clean passes only) to distinguish genuine capability from cheated outcomes, and argue it should be standard practice in any evaluation where cheating vectors are available. Anti-cheat prompts are an effective and essentially free first layer of defense, but they are not a substitute for environmental controls.

Security protocols verification relies on formal tools such as ProVerif and OFMC. This study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can perform comparable analysis. We test GPT and DeepSeek in chat and reasoning modes over three runs on 130 obfuscated AnB/AnBx protocols covering 388 security goals, scored against ProVerif and OFMC. Each provider uses a single model in both modes, switching reasoning on and off, so both contrasts isolate reasoning itself. Chat models achieve 72.7% recall at 27.3% precision for GPT and 69.3% recall at 27.2% precision for DeepSeek. Reasoning models reverse this trade-off, reaching 66.5% precision and 54.5% recall for GPT and 45.4% precision and 57.3% recall for DeepSeek. Enabling reasoning lifts precision from 27.3% to 64.8% for GPT and from 27.2% to 44.4% for DeepSeek on the consolidated verdict. The goal set is imbalanced, with 89 vulnerable goals against 299 secure ones; a trivial always-secure predictor scores 77.1% accuracy, which only GPT reasoning exceeds. All models perform worst on authentication goals: reasoning models detect well under half of injective and non-injective agreement attacks, whereas chat models over-flag them at low precision. Confidentiality is the exception, with F1 up to 95.7% in reasoning mode. Verdicts are unstable across runs: identical on 89.7% of goals for GPT reasoning, 74.0% for DeepSeek reasoning, 70.1% for GPT chat, and 61.6% for DeepSeek chat. Self-reported confidence is uniformly high yet shows no meaningful correlation with correctness. All results rest on a single zero-shot prompt and two model providers, which limits generalisability. On this benchmark, LLMs do not match formal verification, but may serve, at best, as pre-screening filters.

Malware analysis demands rapid interpretation of complex detonation reports spanning filesystem, network, and process behaviours. While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities for technical artifact interpretation, the opacity and escalating API costs of closed-weight frontier models motivate exploration of open-weight alternatives. However, many open-weight models are large, demanding significant compute resources and incurring non-trivial hosting costs that place them beyond reach for resource-constrained deployments. This paper investigates whether orchestrated ensembles of small language models (SLMs) can match or exceed single LLM performance on structured questions about malware detonation reports. We established baselines by testing eleven open-weight SLMs, three cyber security pre-trained models, and six frontier LLMs on Meta's CyberSecEval Malware Analysis benchmark. We then designed and evaluated four orchestration architectures: (i) a multi-agent pipeline that decomposes analysis into structured evidence-collection and reasoning stages, (ii) an adversarial debate framework in which two agents iteratively critique each other's reasoning, (iii) a hierarchical consultation system that pairs a general-purpose SLM with a cyber-specialised expert model, and (iv) a hybrid architecture that combines evidence-grounded pipelines with adversarial debate reasoning. The hybrid system (Qwen3-4B with Foundation-Sec-8B) achieved 35.30% overall accuracy, exceeding the strongest cyber-specialised baseline (22.54%) and the strongest ungrounded frontier baseline (34.77%); when given the same evidence pipeline, grounded Gemini remained the strongest configuration at 38.22%. These findings show that evidence-grounded orchestration can substantially improve the performance of collaborative SLMs for supporting interpretation of malware detonation reports.

Traditional pentesting uses reconnaissance at each step to uncover unseen weaknesses, build stronger attacks, and advance the objective; we argue that AI agents require the same treatment. We formalize agent reconnaissance by modeling the process and identifying the knowledge assets it seeks to extract: what they are, how they are used, and which agent weaknesses they exploit to give adversaries leverage in indirect prompt injection attacks. We instantiate these insights in Know Your Agent (KYA), a framework that automates black-box, reconnaissance-driven pentesting by probing agents, building target profiles, and using those profiles to craft stronger attacks. We evaluate KYA on agent-security benchmarks and a real-world coding agent, and release KYA, its benchmarks, and baseline implementations for reproducibility.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly fine-tuned for critical-domain Question-Answering (QA), yet choosing which small model to adapt, before paying the cost of adaptation, remains difficult. Fine-tuning can improve domain alignment, but it may also erode prior knowledge, weaken instruction-following, or increase hallucination, especially when labeled data are scarce or rapidly evolving as in cybersecurity. We present FiT (Find before Fine-Tune), a task-oriented diagnostic framework that characterizes small LLMs along three capabilities required for cybersecurity QA: vocabulary recognition, parametric knowledge, and contextualization of retrieved information. Using FiT, we conduct an empirical study of five open-weight 7-billion-parameter models under two fine-tuning regimes. We find that fine-tuning does not uniformly help: it consistently degrades vocabulary and parametric knowledge in small models, and the two regimes trade off differently. Knowledge-focused tuning causes moderate, rank-preserving degradation, whereas instruction-focused tuning collapses measured knowledge through induced abstention, inverting the knowledge ranking while leaving retrieval-grounded contextualization essentially intact. We quantify these regime-specific patterns with rank-correlation analysis and show that pre-fine-tuning FiT scores anticipate the direction of post-tuning change. Our results suggest that task-oriented diagnosis can screen out unsuitable models, avoid unnecessary fine-tuning, and support safer deployment of small LLMs in cybersecurity QA pipelines.

LLM-based browser agents are rapidly changing the threat landscape for web security. Unlike traditional automation frameworks that execute predefined scripts, these agents can autonomously navigate websites, reason about page content, and interact with web interfaces using natural-language instructions. This evolution raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of bot management systems, widely deployed to defend against automated web abuse. In this paper, we present a systematic measurement study evaluating the resilience of both interactive challenge-based defenses and non-interactive trust-based defenses against two attacker classes: commercial Captcha-solving services and LLM-based browser agents. Our evaluation spans seven solver services and six agents, including cloud-hosted, self-hosted, AI-assisted, and browser-extension configurations, tested against hCaptcha, reCaptcha v2, reCaptcha v3, and Cloudflare Turnstile. Our results show that challenge-based defenses are broadly ineffective against commercial solvers, which achieve near-perfect bypass at negligible cost. The challenges can similarly be defeated by LLM-based agents when a dedicated solver module is available. Non-interactive defenses such as reCaptcha v3 exhibit stronger resistance, but our analysis reveals that this resilience does not reflect a fundamental security property. Through fine-grained interaction trace analysis, we find that two agents with nearly indistinguishable behavioral footprints yield divergent outcomes, one bypassing the defense and one failing, isolating execution-environment authenticity, rather than agent behavior, as the determining factor. These findings suggest that the security boundary of non-interactive defenses lies at the environment layer, with significant implications for how bot management systems are designed and evaluated.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for a range of software, hardware and human-centered security tasks. Consequently, LLM performance on security tasks is an active area of measurement and research, often with a focus on identifying areas in which LLM security "knowledge" may be insufficient. Popular strategies for identifying LLM security knowledge gaps include building corpora of challenge questions or task benchmarks, strategies that require substantial manual work and security expertise to design and execute. We introduce a partially-automated method for assessing LLM knowledge of a security area. The method uses authoritative information from Consumer Protection Agencies (CPAs) to identify instability in LLM responses that can be indicative of knowledge gaps. We demonstrate the method for 2 security topics, identity theft and impostor scams, and 5 LLMs in 2 leading LLM families, Gemini and GPT, using publicly available information about identity theft and impostor scams from 6 CPAs. The method distinguishes between models that have and don't have sufficient knowledge to accurately identify the security topics in text narratives.

Large language model (LLM) agents are starting to take on routine work in high-performance computing (HPC), including monitoring Slurm jobs, diagnosing failed builds, inspecting simulation output, and coordinating scientific workflows. To do this work, an agent commonly acts under its user's credentials and inherits the user's access to files and the scheduler. This arrangement creates a failure mode that ordinary account-level controls do not capture. Adversarial instructions in a log, tool description, shared file, or peer-agent message may redirect the agent beyond the task the user assigned, even though every resulting command is authenticated and permitted for that account. We refer to this as the hijacked authorized agent problem. Existing agent-security studies explain relevant mechanisms, such as indirect prompt injection and tool misuse, but generally evaluate them in web, enterprise, or personal-assistant settings. HPC security, by contrast, has mature controls for identity and isolation but does not ordinarily represent the intent of a particular task. This paper defines the threat model in the HPC setting, identifies attack surfaces created by schedulers, shared storage, multi-project accounts, and scientific workflows, and examines where current controls fall short. It concludes with a research agenda and a plan for an empirical benchmark, TaskBound.

Phishing emails remain one of the most persistent cybersecurity threats, and machine-learning classifiers are widely used to detect them. Most reported detection accuracies, however, are measured on clean, in-distribution test data rather than on emails deliberately altered to evade detection. This paper reports a controlled, pairwise comparison of two phishing-detection approaches a TF-IDF + Logistic Regression baseline and a fine-tuned DistilBERT transformer trained on a unified corpus of 82,255 emails drawn from six public datasets and evaluated under three conditions: normal in-distribution, synthetic phishing, and adversarial phishing. Both models exceeded 98% accuracy on clean data yet degraded sharply under adversarial testing: TF-IDF + LR fell to 64.00% (a 34.59-percentage-point drop) and DistilBERT fell to 63.64% (a 35.40-percentage-point drop) a gap of only 0.36 percentage points, equivalent to a single email in the 275-sample adversarial test set. LIME, SHAP, and attention-rollout analysis indicate the two models relied on different evidence yet showed similar vulnerability. Pairwise error analysis shows the models agreed on 54.9% of adversarial samples but each made a similar number of exclusive errors (24 and 25 respectively), indicating partly complementary rather than identical failure modes. The results show that clean-data accuracy does not predict adversarial robustness, and that adversarial testing should be a standard part of phishing-detection evaluation.

Natural-language control offers a promising interface for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), but directly applying self-hosted computer-use agents (SHCUAs) to UAV control introduces a structural mismatch. SHCUAs are designed for interactive host-side tool use, where delayed agent iterations are often acceptable. UAV control, however, is coupled with continuously changing physical states, strict timing constraints, safety risks, and security accountability. A stale, unauthorized, or tampered agent decision may therefore lead to unsafe or untraceable vehicle behavior. This paper proposes a real-time and security-oriented restructuring of SHCUA-based UAV control. Instead of allowing an SHCUA to directly issue flight commands, we transform its outputs into contract-bound UAV skill invocations with explicit timing, state, authority, fallback, and evidence semantics. Based on this abstraction, we design an architecture that separates semantic reasoning from onboard execution and security/safety enforcement. Slow cloud or edge reasoning is used for mission understanding, while onboard components validate and dispatch only timely, authorized, and state-consistent skills. Security-critical enforcement points can be protected by TEE-style or microcontroller isolation mechanisms without moving the full language agent or high-frequency flight-control loop into trusted components. Prototype evaluation shows that RT-SHCUA maintains bounded task-level responsiveness while supporting degraded handling, trusted admission, and auditable evidence preservation for SHCUA-mediated UAV actions.

The increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as AI components in modern software systems introduces distinct security risks to the software supply chain. While many considerations and safety mechanisms are in place for components of the traditional software supply chain, the recent rapid adoption of AI components and platforms has overlooked these hard learned lessons. Selecting and integrating AI models without clear guidance on how these choices affect system security may leave applications vulnerable to threats, such as malicious components, data leakage, and unintended behavior. The goal of this study is to understand practitioners' decision making process and security considerations in selecting and integrating AI components through an exploratory semi-structured interview study. Toward this goal, we conducted semistructured interviews with 22 software developers, architects, and AI practitioners across diverse organizations about how they integrate AI components into their software. Our analysis finds that practitioners' model selection is predominantly driven by functional criteria, including performance, accuracy, cost, and specific features, e.g., tool calling or multimodal support, while security is rarely considered as an evaluation criterion. We observe a consistent lack of security concern throughout the AI component integration process, with established software supply chain lessons overlooked or ignored. The industry is repeating the historically costly mistakes of early software dependency management, prioritizing rapid reuse and availability over security and provenance. We distill our findings into actionable recommendations for AI adopters, model providers, and researchers, advocating for a proactive, security-by-design approach that integrates security evaluation into component selection and sustains it throughout the software development lifecycle.

Data-driven pre-fault dynamic security assessment (DSA) rapidly evaluates the dynamic risk of credible contingencies on a power system using machine learning. Existing approaches face two limitations. First, they require a large labelled database for training, with a separate model trained, tuned, and maintained for each contingency in a potentially long list of credible contingencies. Second, the trained models generalize poorly to unseen contingencies. This work addresses the limitations by using a tabular foundation model (TFM) that assesses stability through in-context learning, requiring no retraining or hyperparameter optimization. A single TFM can assess many contingencies at once, removing the need for one model per classifier. We also characterize when the use of electrical distance coordinates (EDC) as continuous features enables generalization of TFM to unseen contingencies and when they do not, demonstrating how a few labelled samples can reliably improve generalization. Through comprehensive case studies on the IEEE 68-bus system, we show that a single TFM attains an average Macro F1 score of about 90% with only 120 labelled samples per contingency, roughly two orders of magnitude fewer than conventionally assumed, without any model retraining or hyperparameter tuning. For new/unseen contingencies, we show that using just 10 labelled samples of the new contingency with EDC encoding matches the best achievable transfer learning oracle model, which requires fully labelled data and is not deployable in practice. Overall, this initial study paves the way towards developing and deploying foundation models for power system operations, with possible applications across multiple operational tasks.

Security rating platforms summarize externally observable cyber exposure and are expected to help organizations prioritize remediation. A platform may want to tell an organization how a candidate remediation action would affect its score, but repeatedly exposing exact score responses can reveal information about the hidden scoring engine. We propose a surrogate based approach for remediation score impact prediction that is designed to respect this opacity constraint. The surrogate predicts scores from organization configurations while explicitly representing checkpoint (i.e., a security check) applicability and the observed checkpoint set. A main challenge is that such predictions are not uniformly reliable: they depend on the amount and structure of the observable checkpoint evidence available for a given configuration. To address this, the approach combines applicability-aware surrogate construction, sensitivity analysis under controlled checkpoint restriction, a reliability layer for identifying unstable predictions, and score-impact prediction for supported remediation actions. Explicit modeling of checkpoint applicability is central throughout: it improves score prediction and provides the feature basis used by the reliability layer to identify unstable cases. We evaluate the approach on a real-world dataset of 5,188 organization configurations from a commercial security rating platform. The results show that the applicability-aware surrogate improves score prediction over simpler feature representations. For remediation, the surrogate predicts the score impact of supported actions, while the reliability layer helps identify cases in which these predicted impacts should be interpreted cautiously.

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 coding agents produce code faster than humans can review it. In our approach, the prover is the judge of whether the code is correct. Under a verifier-driven loop, AI agents wrote and verified bare-metal security software in Ada/SPARK spanning classical and post-quantum cryptography, TLS 1.3, IKEv2, X.509, and a Matrix client. GNATprove discharged 49,280 proof obligations, established functional correctness for selected primitives, and proved the absence of run-time errors for the rest, at roughly 20-40 times lower supervision cost than comparable hand verification. GNATprove alone was insufficient: some defects could not be detected and were resolved using known-answer tests, interoperability, or human review of specifications. Given weak checks, the agent tried to bypass them and reported success. We report where each layer caught faults and draw the central lesson: what an agent can be trusted to establish is bounded by the strength of its feedback.

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Artificial Intelligent (AI) powered autonomous agents has fundamentally changed the existing forms of software governance. In spite of the rigorous standards of transparency and account ability required according to the international frameworks such as the European Union's AI Act, there is a considerable gap between theory and reality. The present study discusses the inherent drawbacks of currently utilized platforms for LLM evaluation, machine learning workflow, and application performance monitoring in general. It has been shown that current disjointed solutions fail to protect unbound state space agentic architecture from serious threats such as alignment drift, SaaS security concerns, and unauthorized deployment of shadow AI systems. Moreover, a solution is proposed for overcoming the discussed challenges in form of a coherent multi-level AI governance stack Traccia built on the top of OpenTelemetry infrastructure platform. Traccia resolves the last mile for AI Alignment by adding the telemetry data, passive semantic guardrail assessment, and execution lineage into a hashed trace ledger. Traccia automatically creates compliance evidence packages by appending tamper-resistant fingerprints and SHA-256 content hash, that map to regulatory requirements (Articles 12, 14, 19, 26(6), and 50 of the EU AI Act) without invading any data privacy. By performing this evaluation in a methodical manner, a solid machine-readable base has been created for enterprise-wide management of autonomous AI systems.

As AI agents gain prevalance, users are increasingly exposed to the risks such systems entail. Prompt injection attacks, as well as hallucination, can cause agents to leak private information to third parties. As autonomous systems, agents also present the more active danger of performing sensitive tasks, such as bank transactions, without the user's intent or authorization. Recognizing this challenge, the agentic security community has developed numerous proposals for secure agentic systems. Much of this work has focused on product-level approaches, where agentic system developers determine and apply the same security policies and permissions to all users. Yet different users have different needs and preferences, necessitating support for user-level permissions policies in agentic AI systems. To understand how user-level permissions are handled in AI agent systems, we survey 21 proposals for agent permissions systems. From this review, we construct a taxonomy of how different systems specify user-level permissions policies, both at the user interface and internally; derive internal policies from user input; and enforce those policies at run-time. We then analyze five prominent commercial agents and compare their permissions handling to agentic permissions systems in the literature. We identify several high-level themes across the literature and commerical agents, as well as multiple gaps where future work is needed.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Generative AI (GenAI), adoption has increased in industries significantly in recent years. However, the use of these models may also expose systems to new forms of cyberattacks by different malicious actors -- adversarial prompt attack (APA) being one of the most prominent examples of such threats. This paper presents the implementation of an Adversarial Prompting Framework (APF) for a comprehensive assessment of AI safety. The framework systematically evaluates the resilience of the AI model through the generation of structured adversarial prompts at multiple sophistication levels, from direct harmful requests to advanced encoding-based attacks. Our implementation demonstrates the practical application of this methodology in enterprise environments, providing automated testing capabilities with quantitative security assessment metrics. The results indicate significant variations in the model vulnerabilities across different attack vectors, with encoded prompts presenting the highest success rates in bypassing safety mechanisms.

Clinical AI models can expose patients to harm when adversarial vulnerabilities go undetected, yet formal security auditing requires statistical expertise, specialized tools, and significant time. We present an open evaluation task, built on METR Task Standard v0.3.0, that tests whether frontier AI agents can autonomously implement a structured clinical AI security audit. Given a pre-trained clinical prediction model, a patient dataset, and written instructions, each agent must implement four attacks from pseudocode, compute a Security Posture Score covering FGSM robustness, membership inference resistance, expected calibration error, and boundary attack resistance, and write a structured JSON report in a Docker container using only a bash interface and no scaffolding code. Six variants span the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer and MIMIC-IV ICU mortality datasets across three model architectures with increasing defense strength, with reference scores from 55.60 to 90.41. We ran 54 evaluations across three frontier models, with three runs per variant. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-4.1 completed all 18 runs and received perfect evaluator scores. GPT-4o completed 61 percent of runs and used about five times the per-run token count of Claude, although provider tokenization differs. Total API costs were 8 US dollars for GPT-4.1, 12 US dollars for Claude Sonnet 4.6, and 27 US dollars for GPT-4o. GPT-4o failures involved premature session termination, an aggregation error, and an empty submission file. The task, scoring infrastructure, and Wisconsin Breast Cancer assets are publicly released; MIMIC-IV variants require separate PhysioNet access.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly moving from research settings into the wild, deployed on enterprise infrastructure, personal devices, and edge platforms. While cloud deployments offer scalable compute, concerns over data sovereignty, compliance, latency, and third-party dependence are driving organizations toward edge and on-premise LLMs. This shift introduces new security and privacy challenges: limited compute and memory force aggressive optimizations, including quantization, pruning, model partitioning, and parameter-efficient adaptation, each of which can introduce vulnerabilities and reshape the threat landscape. We describe this tension as the Security-Efficiency Paradox, mechanisms that improve efficiency may weaken robustness, expose new attack surfaces, or increase privacy risks. We examine how compression can degrade safety alignment, how partitioned inference enables reconstruction attacks, and how continuous local adaptation may cause privacy leakage and model drift. To analyze these risks, we introduce a deployment-centric taxonomy organized around three architectural constraints: the Memory Wall, the Quadratic Wall, and the Compute Wall. We derive a unified constraint model that quantifies when unsafe optimizations become unavoidable, linking each wall to specific attack surfaces. Building on this model, we propose the Secure Operational Efficiency Score (SOES), a holistic metric balancing task accuracy, jailbreak resistance, and privacy against energy, memory, and latency, enabling practitioners to configure edge LLMs under real-world hardware limits. We further present a practical decision procedure and targeted mitigations for each optimization-induced vulnerability. Together, these contributions provide a co-designed framework for jointly evaluating security, privacy, and efficiency, laying a foundation for securing edge-native intelligent systems.

Hardening IT on-premises environments can be a daunting task for teams without access to adequate cybersecurity expertise. In this regard, Decision Support Systems (DSS) with embedded expert knowledge can assist users by guiding them with security recommendations to meet their objectives. This work proposes a Security DSS that recommends security control sub-families given minimal user requirements indicating coverage of different security dimensions. It leverages a curated, unified dataset from both well-known Information Security (InfoSec) and academic sources. This DSS is defined as a non-zero-sum, simultaneous game that is grounded in a Multi-Agent Influence Diagram (MAID) model and explores the decision space over 7 security dimensions or agents, using no-regret online learning to ultimately find the security control sub-families that best fit the requirements while incurring minimal under- and over-provisioning of security resources. This work was validated in terms of performance and accuracy, among others, for varying dataset sizes. It shows exceptional satisfaction coverage results of 99% when using as little as ~65% of the SW-implementable security controls, running in 1.2-35.7 seconds; and more moderate coverage results of 73%-77% when using ~29% of the controls, resolving in 0.8-13.8 seconds.

Cybersecurity systems must adapt rapidly to emerging threats. However, labeled data for new threat categories is unavailable when those threats first appear. Generalized zero-shot learning offers a natural solution by enabling recognition of unseen classes through auxiliary semantic knowledge rather than labeled examples. Large language models are particularly promising in this setting because they can convert unstructured CTI reports into semantic prototypes for emerging threats. However, applying language-driven zero-shot learning to cybersecurity is difficult due to strong semantic overlap between threat descriptions, heterogeneity between behavioral attributes and text, severe class imbalance, and open-set conditions where unseen threats are unknown during training. We propose SMETA-ZSL, that learns semantic prototypes from overlapping language descriptions through contrastive finetuning, aligns behavioral features through episodic meta-learning and knowledge distillation, and performs adaptive routing for generalization across seen-unseen classes. Across 7 benchmarks, SMETA-ZSL delivers the strongest overall generalized zero-shot performance under the strictest inductive setting, surpassing prior methods by 10.8 points on average, with gains up to 18.1 points. Github:https://github.com/Security-And-Intelligence-Lab-UTEP/SMETA-ZSL

Exposed documents such as emails, chat threads, tickets, and incident notes routinely leak credentials, but during incident response a leaked secret is only half the story. Responders also need to identify the ``door'' the secret opens: the account, tenant, endpoint, database, cloud resource, or other system that the credential could allow an attacker to access. Traditional secret scanners rely on regular expressions or trained classifiers which work well on well-formatted code, yet they struggle when a credential is fragmented, reformatted, or far from the resource it unlocks, and they report the secret string without naming what it opens. We present Secret Scanner Agent (SSA), a multi-agent large-language-model system that extracts both the secret and its associated door, together with supporting evidence, from unstructured exposed documents. SSA pairs a detection agent that favors recall with a review agent that filters false positives and recovers missing context. Because real credential data is sensitive, we evaluate SSA on synthetic benchmarks we generated that span 23 secret types and multiple document formats, scored with a three-step pipeline of programmatic matching, an LLM judge, and human review. Across six models, multi-agent SSA improves extraction precision over a single-agent variant, with the largest gains on door extraction, by up to 16 percentage points. SSA matches a regular-expression scanner's precision while more than tripling its recall, and against thirteen security analysts it is more precise, recovers nearly twice as many secret--door pairs, and runs five to seventeen times faster. By returning the secret, its door, and supporting evidence in one result, SSA turns credential detection into an actionable finding for triage and remediation.

The NIS-2 Directive increases the need for continuous, auditable compliance evidence and motivates a shift from document-based compliance toward machine-readable compliance artifacts. The Open Security Controls Assessment Language (OSCAL) is a standard for this purpose, which the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) is adapting with Grundschutz++. However, companies are still managing extensive legacy IT security concepts (IT-SCs), and migrating them without verification could transfer outdated assets into the new format. While existing research primarily addresses the generation of new concepts, there is a lack of a verification framework that extracts legacy IT-SCs into an auditable intermediate representation, deterministically compares the extracted graph with an independently constructed reference state, and exports schema-valid OSCAL artifacts. This paper introduces the Automated Security Concept Structure Extraction and Reverse Topology-checking (ASSERT) Framework, which addresses this gap by using ontology-based extraction of legacy documents into formal document graphs, a five-class graph difference against a verified reference graph, and the export into schema-valid OSCAL outputs for system description and assessment evidence. Using the BSI's RecPlast dataset, we compare a local open-weight model and a commercial model across three configurations with different levels of reference-ontology exposure. The evaluation shows that ASSERT makes document-infrastructure inconsistencies measurable, but reveals a trade-off between discovering undocumented entities and enforcing a schema.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) systems, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, LLaMA, Copilot, Stable Diffusion by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Stability AI, respectively, are revolutionizing cybersecurity, enabling both automated defense and sophisticated attacks. These technologies power real-time threat detection, phishing defense, secure code generation, and vulnerability exploitation at unprecedented scales. Following a rapid surge where LLM-generated malware grew to account for an estimated 50% of detected threats by 2025, up from just 2% in 2021, navigating this highly automated threat landscape in 2026 demands next-generation security frameworks. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the beneficial and malicious applications of LLMs in cybersecurity, including zero-day detection, DevSecOps, federated learning, synthetic content analysis, and explainable AI (XAI). Drawing on a review of over 70 academic papers, industry reports, and technical documents, this work synthesizes insights from real-world case studies across platforms like Google Play Protect, Microsoft Defender, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Apple App Store, OpenAI Plugin Stores, Hugging Face Spaces, and GitHub, alongside emerging initiatives like the SAFE Framework and AI-driven anomaly detection. We conclude with practical recommendations for responsible and transparent LLM deployment and trustworthy AI, including model watermarking, adversarial defense, and cross-industry collaboration, setting a new benchmark for rigorous, holistic cybersecurity research at the intersection of AI and threat defense, and offering a roadmap for secure, scalable LLM systems that serves as a critical reference for researchers, engineers, and security leaders navigating the complex challenges of AI-driven cybersecurity.

In next-generation networks, communication systems will no longer be limited to data transmission and will be expected to acquire awareness of the surrounding environment. This leads to the concept of integrated sensing and communication (ISAC), where the same wireless infrastructure is used for both communication and environmental sensing. Thus, ISAC enables the system to transmit information efficiently and observe and interpret channel variations and user behavior. Motivated by this capability, this work focuses on detecting an active attacker in an urban environment scenario, where the attacker intentionally manipulates beamforming directions to increase interference and mislead the transmitter into allocating the main lobe of beam toward itself instead of legitimate users. We apply game-theoretic approaches to model the interaction between legitimate users and the attacker, and integrate the resulting utility-based formulation into a reinforcement learning (RL) framework. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method effectively addresses security challenges in dynamic 6G ISAC systems.

i-EXAM is a planning-powered tool that helps system administrators to create security profiles of complex networks and perform what-if analyses to identify network hardening strategies. It leverages planning compilation that provides soundness and completeness guarantees to identify attack paths, evaluate security metrics, generate diverse hardening strategies, and explain these strategies in natural language using Large Language Models.

We present key challenges and future research directions in the security and privacy of agentic AI, based on a horizon-scanning exercise that brought together thirty leading international experts from academia, industry, and government to engage in focused discussions and collaborative exercises on the emerging risks associated with the growing agency of AI.

Defenses that provide security guarantees against prompt injection attacks rely on strict isolation between trusted instructions and untrusted data. In text-based environments such as tool-use APIs, this separation arises naturally: agents can reason from interface definitions without ever processing untrusted content. Extending these guarantees to web agents faces a fundamental challenge: to perceive and interact with their environment, web agents must first observe the rendered page, which intermingles trusted content with untrusted content. This structural entanglement removes the trust boundary on which security guarantees depend, undermining provable defenses for web agents. In this paper, we present Untrusted Content Masking (UCM), a simple and effective approach that restores this boundary in web environments. We leverage a key structural insight: a webpage's Document Object Model (DOM) encodes sufficient information to distinguish trusted from untrusted regions without reading their content. Our framework exploits this by redacting untrusted regions before they reach the agent and routing interaction through a sandboxed interface with strict privilege separation, thereby enabling agents to observe and interact with their environment while remaining isolated from adversarial content. The code is publicly available.

I propose a new methodology to attack the fascinating Gilbreath's conjecture about prime numbers, first posted in 1878 and unsolved to this day. The problem statement is rudimentary: kids can understand it. However, despite decades of research, almost no progress has been made. This paper changes the game by presenting a new approach based on sieving, a number of new results with proof, a precise path to the solution, and solid references. It also introduces the concept of reverse sieving, along with applications to testing randomness, pattern and fraud detection, cybersecurity, synthetic data, sequence categorization and normalization, or to detect and quantify a new type of chaos in time series including Brownian motions. Magic primes, forbidden prime number constellations, cellular automata, and reduction via classes of equivalent sequences, are some of the innovative and promising topics discussed in the paper.

Large language model agents driving security tool suites over the Model Context Protocol are increasingly common. Yet the factors that bound their capability remain poorly characterized: how much depends on the model versus the client that drives it, whether constraining the agent to the orchestrator's own tools helps, and where capability is limited by reasoning rather than by missing tools. Using HexStrikeAI, an open-source orchestrator that exposes 150+ tools, as a testbed, we follow a methodology that evaluates the system, diagnoses its failures, and applies targeted improvements. We run 86 picoCTF challenges across seven categories and three difficulty tiers, under three tool-access regimes and three model/client configurations (774 trials). We then apply corrections to existing tools, agent-behavior changes, and eleven new capability tools, and re-run the previously-unsuccessful trials. The diagnosis isolates the driving client as a first-order factor for a fixed model (a 2.1 * gap between two DeepSeek clients) and a monotonic difficulty gradient, with the largest gains in the mid tier. The overall solve rate rises from 55.4% to 72.0%, and every configuration improves significantly (paired McNemar p < 0.001, non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals). The residual failures are reasoning- or environment-bound rather than missing-tool. A 60-run stability sub-study finds single-run verdicts reproducible (17/20 unanimous). We discuss what the results imply for how such orchestrators should be evaluated, and we are explicit about the limits: the study uses a single benchmark, the fixes were tuned on the same challenges they were evaluated on, and the client effect is demonstrated for one model only, so its generality to other models remains a hypothesis.

There is no doubt that safety alignment is an essential step in LLM training. However, conceptually it does not distinguish between various domains and the level of potential harm of a query, which creates significant complications in the fields like cyber security, where a model should not be constrained by its safety circuits to accomplish the goals of legitimate, authorized operations. In this work, we share our findings from a large scale abliteration experiment on 24 open-source LLMs and show that domain-specific abliteration is achievable with standard methodology on the example of a 1T-parameter Kimi K2. Building on recent work showing that refusal in LLMs occupies a multi-dimensional subspace within layers, we find that it is also distributed widely across layers, especially in trillion-parameter MoE architectures, and so we aim to capture the part of it that represents harmful concepts in the cybersecurity domain exclusively. We also investigate the correlation between models' features and the effect of domain-specific abliteration, identifying that the type of safety training and architecture are the most reliable predictors. Finally, we classify the models into 3 abliteration susceptibility tiers and put forward a set of conjectures as to why a particular effect from this intervention might be observed in a given model.

The rapid deployment of AI systems across high-stakes domains has created urgent demand for standardized evaluation, yet the field remains fragmented across competing risk taxonomies that catalog risks without showing how an audit is executed. At least 74 AI risk taxonomies exist, and almost all stop at the catalog. The hard part of auditing is not naming a risk but operationalizing it: turning it into a test run against a real system, a measured value, a calibrated severity, and a defensible grade. This paper leads with that bridge. We present the operationalization layer Eticas has built and run, shown end to end on a single risk (PII leakage) against a public benchmark, and then the open taxonomy that makes the method scale. On GPT-4-0314, a disclosure risk that seven external frameworks require be controlled is measured at 0%, 51%, and 84% disclosure as adversarial conditioning increases, mapping through calibrated severity bands to a subcategory grade of E with a SYSTEMIC pattern. Around this example, the Eticas AI Risk Taxonomy v2.0.0 organizes 76 active subcategories across 10 categories and 20 sub-groups, with mappings to 18 external frameworks across compliance, reference, and academic tiers. Its category and sub-group layer is published under CC BY 4.0 as open semantic infrastructure with stable URIs and SKOS/JSON-LD distributions, and a worked subcategory example shows the operational layer down to its severity thresholds. The contribution is the demonstrated bridge from concept to graded finding, anchored by a clean separation of risks from the mechanisms by which they surface, and framed by an open-core model in which the conceptual scaffold is open and the methodology calibration is the practitioner layer. This is the infrastructure the AI auditing field needs: shared, open, and demonstrably operable.

Background. Labeled data for security classification is scarce. Semi-supervised learning (SSL) propagates labels from a small labeled pool to larger unlabeled pools. Yet security applications often use SSL as a black box: default parameters, a fixed classifier, and no handling of pseudo-label-induced class imbalance. Aims. Recent work reports sizeable gains from optimizing SSL pipelines via joint search, AutoML, or per-component tuning. These gains are hard to attribute: they may reflect useful SSL-classifier interactions, or mostly from simply tuning the downstream classifier. We disentangle these effects for binary tabular security data with classical SSL and tree-based classifiers. Method. We build SemiScope as an analysis instrument, not a deployment recommendation. It uses Bayesian Optimization to jointly tune SSL settings, confidence filtering, oversampling, and the classifier. The key control, Tuned-Clf, fixes SSL to defaults but gets the same 100-trial classifier budget and validation-set threshold tuning as SemiScope. At 10% labels, we compare them with paired TOST using a +/-1.0 g-measure smallest effect of interest. Results. SemiScope beats every default SSL baseline on all five datasets, improving over the strongest by 0.7-12.7 points. Under the equal-budget control, Tuned-Clf is statistically equivalent to the full pipeline on 4 of 5 datasets; Phishing is inconclusive. Classifier HPO alone recovers a median 86% of SemiScope's gain over Default Self-Training (ST) + Random Forest (RF). Conclusions. The reusable contribution is the decomposition protocol. A simpler recipe suffices: use Self-Training, tune the classifier with Bayesian Optimization, and tune the decision threshold on validation data. It reaches within 1 g-measure of Supervised RF at 20-30% labels on four datasets and 40% on Drebin, at the same or lower label rate than Default ST + RF on every dataset.

We introduce the Neuro-Bayesian-Symbolic Residual Attention Shallow Network (NBS-RASN), a hybrid neural architecture for explainable cybersecurity risk assessment in open-source ecosystems. Unlike deep models that trade interpretability for accuracy, our shallow network encodes domain knowledge, causal reasoning, and expert judgment as differentiable components. It uses 80 interpretable neurons across 12 layers, including a gatekeeper that enforces five epistemological axioms - precision, causality, falsifiability, transparency, and completeness - as hard constraints before propagation. Despite limited depth, the network exhibits deep-learning traits via residual attention and feedback loops, learning complex risk patterns without becoming a black box. It produces fully decomposable scores: a deterministic weighted component plus an expert adjustment, with each adjustment traceable to named amplifiers (blast radius, propagation speed, structural nature, default exposure, exploitation pattern, institutional criticality). We validate on 20 open-source projects covering all OWASP Top 10:2025 categories and language risk classes, achieving confidence scores of 0.79-0.97, and show that explainability is guaranteed by design, not by a training algorithm. This challenges the assumption that deep learning requires deep networks, proving that shallow networks with deep reasoning can outperform opaque models in high-stakes cybersecurity, where interpretability is essential.

Generative AI has emerged as a significant cybersecurity threat, with several recent attack campaigns leveraging LLMs to generate code for malicious purposes via scripting languages such as PowerShell. Consequently, for cybersecurity analysts, it is imperative to investigate the offensive capabilities of AI code generators. In this paper, we propose an experimental framework to assess LLM-generated PowerShell malware, which comprises a novel sandbox approach for dynamic analysis of AI-generated malware. Furthermore, we present a novel, manually curated dataset of real-world PowerShell malware, annotated in natural language to assist the training and evaluation of LLMs. Finally, this study evaluates permissive, open-weight LLMs adapted to PowerShell malware generation. Our results reveal a high degree of similarity between real malware and LLM-generated ones in terms of triggered OS malicious events, with a median Jaccard index of 84.5% and 48.4% of instances achieving complete overlap.

Claw-like AI agents (e.g., OpenClaw) are always-on processes with persistent access to credentials, files, tools, and external services. They take on system-level responsibilities -- installing packages, maintaining state, scheduling subtasks, and mediating I/O -- making security failures far more severe than in other agents. Yet existing benchmarks focus on model responses and tool calls, leaving cross-component failure modes largely unmeasured. We adopt a computer-system analogy: treating a Claw-like agent as an agentic computer system whose gateway runtime plays an OS-like mediation role, whose Skills resemble user-installed applications, and whose Plugins resemble loadable extensions with runtime privileges. Each component has a classical counterpart whose protection mechanisms -- refined over decades of cybersecurity research -- are absent on the agent side. From this perspective, we develop SafeClawArena, a benchmark of 406 adversarial tasks across four attack surfaces (Skill Supply-Chain Integrity, Persistent State Exploitation, Cross-Boundary Data Flow, and Indirect Prompt Injection), executed in containerized replicas of real agent platforms with canary-marked credentials and evaluated via automated taint tracking across nine output channels. We evaluate three platforms (OpenClaw, NemoClaw, SeClaw) and five frontier LLMs. The highest attack success rate reaches 70%; malicious Plugins succeed in 100% of cases regardless of the LLM. SeClaw cuts GPT-5.4's attack success rate from 70% to 22%, partly through utility-security tradeoffs rather than active defenses, while Claude-Opus-4.6 already sits near a 22% floor on every platform. These results expose the inadequacy of current defenses and suggest directions for future hardening. Code and data: https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/SafeClawArena.

Always-on agents are systems whose future behavior depends on durable state accumulated across earlier interactions. We treat them as persistent-state systems: the operative system includes retrievable memories, but also task ledgers, permissions, credentials, commitments, provenance and audit records, shared state, trigger conditions, and externally committed effects linked to those records. The survey reads the literature through six diagnostic axes for each state item, authority, scope, mutability, provenance, recoverability, and actionability, and through a lifecycle in which state is written, validated, organized, retrieved, acted upon, updated, forgotten, audited, and sometimes rolled back. Across a 435-work coded corpus, treated as a scoped map rather than an exhaustive census, the literature concentrates more heavily on accumulating and retrieving state than on governing, recovering, or relinquishing it. We therefore introduce the Always-On Evaluation Protocol (AOEP-v0), a pilot evaluation contract that makes these governance requirements concrete by scoring state mutation and recovery obligations rather than answer quality alone. The resulting agenda connects always-on agents to databases, distributed systems, formal methods, capability security, and machine unlearning.

LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify. This paper combines a hybrid survey - a systematic search paired with narrative synthesis and separately tracked grey evidence - with a conceptual framework and a structured ten-model audit. The synthesis spans eight evidence streams: benchmark validity, dynamic evaluation, LLM-as-judge reliability, safety evaluation, jailbreak/refusal robustness, reward hacking, mechanistic interpretability, and governance/auditability, covering 2018-2026 evaluation-safety measurement work. We introduce EvalSafetyGap as an organizing hypothesis for comparing evaluation-side and alignment-side proxy failures under optimization pressure, using Goodhart's Law together with two constructs we develop here - an Instability Decomposition and an Alignment Trilemma - as tools for generating testable comparisons. The audit shows how conclusions shift when capability, behavioral safety, and governance are measured separately. In this sample ($n = 10$), the association between capability and sustained adversarial robustness is statistically indeterminate using the displayed Table 3 inputs (Pearson $r = +0.232$, $p = 0.520$), and the apparent open-closed safety gap is modest, driven mainly by governance and disclosure rather than behavioral robustness, and sensitive to how a single borderline model is classified; attempt-budget results are protocol dependent. Because the public evidence uses heterogeneous protocols, the audit is diagnostic rather than rank-generating. The contribution is a shared vocabulary and evidence map to support dynamic evaluation, transparent source reporting, multi-attempt safety measurement, and auditable alignment practice.

International humanitarian law protects civilians from direct attack unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities, with the ICRC's 2009 Interpretive Guidance operationalising this rule through a three-criterion cumulative test. This paper argues that AI-mediated civilian cyber operations challenge the direct causation element of this test in a structurally specific way: when a civilian deploys an autonomous multi-agent cyber system of the kind recently demonstrated in offensive AI research, the "one causal step" standard fails because harm is produced by system-generated decisions made after human disengagement, and the integral-part requirement does not extend because it presupposes downstream human contributors whose conduct can be independently classified. The framework therefore defaults to treating such deployments as indirect participation, in tension with its purpose of capturing civilians who personally take part in hostilities. Beyond the doctrinal analysis, this paper identifies goal-specification granularity as the property on which the integral-part test's concreteness component implicitly turns, classifies AI-mediated operations along a five-level spectrum, and argues that existing technical AI governance instruments do not log or report this property.

Cybersecurity is a real-life test-bed for many machine learning problems at once, especially when considering modern strides in using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate processes as ``agents.'' Cybersecurity workflows require orchestrating hundreds of standard and bespoke tools through various formats. The scale of cybersecurity data is enormous; for example, a single malware sample can be viewed as a sequence of billions of tokens. The cost of labeling any file by experts is enormous and labor-intensive, in part because an adversary (possibly a well-funded nation state actor) is attempting to subvert your detection methods. Even skilled experts may disagree on the correct label, creating ambiguity in what constitutes ground truth. When deployed, models must run quickly on billions of items a day, where low-latency is critical for operational success, in a continuously changing environment. In addition, explainability is not optional: analysts demand clear reasoning for model decisions to cope with the large number of false-positive alerts they face daily, and to quickly develop remediation and understand how something went wrong. In short, the amount of complexity cybersecurity is greater than that of natural language and computer vision, and thus we posit that cybersecurity is the better test-case for general AI progress than other, well-studied fields.

Detecting security threats in an organization's cloud computing environment has become necessary due to the increased reliance on cloud infrastructure. Logging of all cloud computing events enables investigation into any incidents after they are detected. Automated detection of threats using the logs based on heuristics or anomaly detection could result in a high false positive rate due to its relatively static nature. In this article, we present an industrial case study of a self-supervised learning method using graph neural networks applied to AWS CloudTrail logs to surface suspicious events for analyst review. The model produces an anomaly score for each event and dynamically adapts to changes in the organization without requiring periodic retraining. Based on our experiments across five organizations, the proposed model produced substantially fewer alerts than a domain expert rule-based baseline in almost all cases, reducing alert volumes to approximately 1 per hour from thousands generated by traditional methods. We note that this evaluation covers only flagged events, and false negatives cannot be estimated from the current data; findings should therefore be interpreted as a practical deployment study offering insights into real-world constraints rather than a fully validated detection system. We discuss these limitations and the requirements for extending the approach to other cloud environments as future work.

Agent-based AI has enabled the automation of tasks by exposing application tools and resources to large language models (LLMs). However, to improve scope and accuracy, agents are often given access rights that exceed those of ordinary users, introducing significant security risks. AI is routinely integrated into applications with a disregard to security, risking data exposure and breaching regulations. This paper applies the AI Trust, Risk, and Security Management (TRiSM) framework to a medical report-generation application to demonstrate how an insecure agent workflow can be transformed into security-conscious agentic workflow. Both workflows were evaluated across five LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, GPT-4.1-nano, GPT-4.1-mini, GPT-5.4-mini, and Gemini 2.5 Flash) on two report types, totalling 800 generations and 500 attack scenarios including RAG poisoning, data-field injection, and client-side network injection. The TRiSM-guided agentic workflow reduced mean attack success rates from 31% to 10% for RAG poisoning and from 42% to 25% for data-field injection, while eliminating the network injection vector entirely through server-side prompt construction. Furthermore, report accuracy increased by 14 percentage points (72.5% to 86.5%) with the agentic workflow, demonstrating a secure design which provides more reliable outputs. This paper contributes to knowledge by demonstrating least-privilege, defence in depth agentic workflows improving security and accuracy, while also highlighting model choice is a necessary architectural consideration.

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

Third-party vendors, such as analytics platforms, cloud services, identity providers, and software suppliers, are increasingly embedded in digital service delivery. While these arrangements enable scale and specialization, they also move customer data and security-relevant practices into environments that customers rarely see, select, or evaluate. This paper examines this problem through a document analysis of the November 2025 OpenAI-Mixpanel security incident. The incident serves as an illustrative case for showing how a security event in a vendor environment can become a governance and accountability problem for the focal organization that maintains the customer relationship. Drawing on organizational trust research and agency theory, the paper argues that third-party cybersecurity risk is both a trust relationship and a delegation problem. Customers trust the visible service provider, while the provider relies on vendors whose security practices are only partially visible and controllable. The paper develops the concept of transitive trust, where customer trust in a digital service depends on the security practices of vendors authorized by that service provider. It then presents the Fortress and Gatekeeper framework, which explains cybersecurity governance boundaries through trust and data flows rather than formal organizational ownership alone. The analysis develops four propositions concerning vendor integration, metadata exposure, vendor assurance, and data proliferation. The paper contributes to cybersecurity governance scholarship by explaining how delegated data processing creates customer-facing accountability and by identifying implications for vendor tiering, data classification, contractual design, continuous assurance, and data minimization.

Security misconfigurations in Terraform Infrastructure-as-Code are a growing risk in cloud deployments, and large language models are increasingly used as automated repair agents. Existing evaluations often treat a repair as successful when the targeted static-analysis finding disappears, without checking planning validity, behavioral change, or security intent. This paper presents TerraProbe, a five-layer oracle framework for evaluating LLM-assisted Terraform security repair. We apply TerraProbe to 288 first-pass repairs generated by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet across 68 real-world TerraDS modules and 28 controlled injected-defect modules. The results show that targeted Checkov removal overstates repair success. Although targeted removal reaches 83.3 percent for the primary model, full-scanner cleanliness drops to 10.4 percent, Terraform planning succeeds for 39.6 percent, and plan comparison is reachable for 38.5 percent. Human adjudication further shows that 71.4 percent of plan-compared real-world repairs are deceptive fixes that pass automated checks while leaving the underlying vulnerability in place. This pattern is statistically indistinguishable across the three models, with deceptive-fix rates from 57.1 percent to 71.4 percent and pairwise Fisher exact p-values above 0.10. The paper introduces a four-dimensional taxonomy of deceptive fixes, validated with Cohen kappa of 0.78 and Krippendorff alpha of 0.76. IAM permission analysis confirms that wildcard Resource grants persist in all nine CKV2 AWS 11 deceptive-fix cases. TerraProbe contributes an evaluation methodology, a replication package, and the Multi-Layer Oracle Evaluation framework for distinguishing intent-aligned security repairs from scanner-passing false successes.

Software vulnerability remediation is a cognitively demanding task that requires specialized security expertise often lacking in general developers. In the meantime, Large Language Models (LLMs) assisted tools show potential in vulnerability detection, location, and repair tasks. [Hypothesis:] While LLM-assistance is hypothesized to accelerate patching, it also risks introducing hallucinations or insecure code, leading to a higher likelihood of generating superficial repairs that bypass the standard functionality checks but fail the security validation. [Objective:] We aim to present an empirical experiment, unveiling the capability of LLM-assisted vulnerability patching compared to manual debugging on human participants in real-world scenarios. [Method:] We plan to conduct a controlled experiment using a Balanced Crossover design. For that, we have developed a WebApp for code execution and integrated hidden Ghost Tests to verify patch integrity beyond visible functional requirements. The experiment involves training and evaluation scenarios. The remediation speed, remediation efficacy for both standard functionality tests and security tests, and participant perception will be evaluated. [Pilot Study:] A pilot experiment with a small sample of participants has been conducted, providing insights for the following study.

The accelerated digitalization of renewable energy smart grids through IoT sensors, AMI, and SCADA systems has significantly expanded the attack surface for sophisticated cyberattacks, FDI attacks that stealthily distort state estimation and DoS/DDoS attacks that flood communication channels. Current IDS, however, exhibit three inherent limitations: inadequate modeling of the temporal progression of multi-step attacks, degraded scalability under extremely skewed class distributions of standard benchmark datasets, and restricted generalization across heterogeneous network environments. In this study, we present a Hybrid CNN-LSTM IDS that jointly exploits CNN-based spatial feature extraction and LSTM-based temporal sequence modeling, enabling the detection of instantaneous volumetric anomalies and gradually evolving low and slow-attack campaigns in real time. The model was trained using a seven-step preprocessing workflow comprising missing-value imputation, min-max normalization, one-hot encoding, SMOTE class balancing, mutual-information feature selection, causal temporal sequence construction (T=10), and stratified partitioning. LSTM (96.1%), Random Forest (93.5%), SVM (91.2%) and KNN (89.7%); in NSL-KDD, it reaches 98.2% precision versus 96.4% (LSTM), 95.2% (CNN), 92.7% (Random Forest) and 90.8% (SVM), with margins of 2-9 percentage points in all measures. An ablation analysis identified SMOTE balancing as the most influential design choice (-3.7~pp F1 without it). The model achieves a real-time inference throughput of 27,800 flows/s on GPU and 0.082 ms/sample CPU latency in FP32,, with INT8 quantization providing an additional 3.1 x speedup at 0.3% accuracy loss, confirming deployment feasibility on resource-constrained IEDs with <128MB memory and establishing a deployable deep-learning framework for securing next-generation renewable energy smart grid infrastructure.