software security teams

Abstract: Function renaming in stripped binaries can substantially assist reverse engineers by improving code readability, yet it is a challenging task. The difficulty stems from the need to accurately capture function semantics from low-level binary code across diverse instruction sets, architectures, and compiler optimizations, and to express these semantics in concise, human-readable names. Existing approaches either inadequately capture comprehensive function semantics or exhibit limited generalization to previously unseen binaries. In this paper, we present Hieronym, a generative large language model (LLM)-based framework for stripped binary function renaming. Hieronym adopts a hierarchical summarization-driven domain adaptation strategy and integrates multi-source information, including global binary context, local calling context, and intrinsic function semantics, to enhance the LLM's understanding of binary code. To enable systematic evaluation, we further propose a dual-layer evaluation framework that incorporates both token-level and whole-name-level metrics. We evaluate Hieronym on binary functions compiled with four compiler optimization levels (O0-O3) for four architectures (x64, x86, ARM, and MIPS). Experimental results demonstrate that Hieronym significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving token-level improvements of 50.12% in precision, 41.75% in recall, and 45.10% in F1-score, as well as a 79.94% improvement in name-level accuracy, while also exhibiting strong generalization capability. Moreover, experiments on real-world malware samples further validate the practical effectiveness of Hieronym in security-critical scenarios.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate and assist with software development, yet existing vulnerability datasets largely focus on human-written code or controlled prompting environments. This limits the ability to study security weaknesses in LLM-generated code as it appears in real-world software projects. We present LLMVul, a vulnerability-labeled dataset of LLM-generated C/C++ functions mined from real production repositories. We mine AI-assisted development activity from GitHub over a 4 year period, from November 13, 2022 to September 3, 2026, using provenance signals such as commit metadata and AI-related authorship evidence. After filtering and deduplication, LLMVul contains 21,430 unique C/C++ functions from 226 repositories, together with repository, commit, function, provenance, and AI-tool metadata. We establish vulnerability labels using an ensemble of complementary static-analysis and pattern-based techniques and assign Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) categories to confirmed vulnerable functions. To assess labeling reliability, we additionally conduct independent manual annotation and measure inter-rater agreement using Cohen's kappa ($k=0.79$). LLMVul contains 1,540 ensemble-vulnerable functions spanning 17 unique CWE categories, providing substantially more real-world LLM-generated vulnerable C/C++ functions than existing vulnerability-oriented LLM code benchmarks. By preserving both code-level vulnerability labels and generation/provenance metadata, LLMVul enables reproducible research on vulnerability detection, security evaluation of LLM-generated code, and analysis of vulnerability patterns in AI-assisted software development. The LLMVul dataset is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22668216.

Abstract: The Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol, now governed by the Linux Foundation, is an open standard that enables autonomous AI agents to discover, authenticate with, and delegate tasks to one another across organizational boundaries. Designed to complement the Model Context Protocol (MCP) for tool integration, A2A is rapidly emerging as the horizontal communication layer of the multi-agent ecosystem. Yet the protocol's security has received no systematic analysis. This paper presents A2ABreak, the first rigorous systematic security analysis of the A2A protocol. We introduce a novel framework that utilizes an LLM-assisted extraction of a verified finite-state machine directly from the natural-language specification, producing a unified model of 37 states and 76 transitions from 929 formalized statements, and then systematically reasons over this model to discover protocol-level vulnerabilities through adversarial verification, under a full-compliance assumption. Our analysis uncovers 11 new vulnerabilities, each exploitable by a specification-compliant adversary without requiring any implementation flaw. Among the findings are cross-client context injection through unprotected context identifiers, credential harvesting via multi-hop identity loss in delegation chains, and data exfiltration through rogue agents advertising unattested capability claims. A2ABreak achieves 73.3% precision and 84.6% F1 against independent expert review, while a zero-shot LLM baseline operating over the same specification produces zero confirmed findings, demonstrating that explicit formal grounding is essential for sound protocol security analysis.

Abstract: 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.

Abstract: Watermarking the final patch produced by a coding agent provides provenance evidence for the submitted artifact, but does not authenticate the visible process that produced it. Behavioral watermarking methods primarily provide a global detection or identifier-recovery signal, so a locally edited trajectory may retain sufficient ownership evidence without revealing which protected region has become inconsistent. To address this limitation, we propose TrajMark, a training-free, symmetric-key, visible-only trajectory watermarking framework that separates robust ownership attribution from fragile local integrity verification. Our framework consists of two complementary layers: a sparse owner layer that encodes a six-bit deployment identifier by rewriting a keyed subset of naturally occurring READ actions into masked linear equations, and a localization layer that inserts linked Q12 ordinary, group, and terminal seals to commit to protected critical-action segments. This separation allows ownership evidence to accumulate robustly across trajectories, while local modifications perturb nearby keyed commitments and expose the affected protocol region. We further provide a design-level analysis of owner recoverability, integrity collision probability, structural overhead, and localization behavior. Across three coding-agent frameworks and three LLMs, TrajMark recovers the exact owner in all evaluated clean full-watermark batches. Under exhaustive eligible single-site attacks it detects 95.5%-100% of edits, and under random single-action corruption it localizes 95.8% of modified sites to an accepted protocol region rather than to the individual action. Owner marking adds no trajectory actions; the integrity layer adds explicit read-only seals, and matched Pass@1 is 26.9% versus 26.3% for unwatermarked runs.

Abstract: Static analysis remains a cornerstone of software security, yet the effectiveness of tools such as CodeQL is often limited by the substantial manual effort required to develop high-coverage query suites. While large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a potential solution for automated code reasoning, their practical utility in generating structured, executable security queries remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to evaluate the ability of LLMs to synthesize CodeQL queries using vulnerability data from the National Vulnerability Database. Through this investigation, we explore the potential of using LLMs as an automatic CodeQL query generator. Subsequently, we systematically evaluate the performance of various LLM architectures across a diverse set of real-world vulnerabilities, measuring their ability to improve detection coverage and precision. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated queries significantly enhance the baseline CodeQL queries, yielding 82% improvement in average F1-score. Furthermore, we provide a detailed cost- benefit analysis showing that while direct LLM-based scanning of entire repositories is often computationally and financially prohibitive, leveraging LLMs to synthesize CodeQL queries offers a scalable and cost-effective alternative for large-scale vulnerability detection. Our results suggest that LLMs can effectively bridge the gap between unstructured vulnerability reports and formal static analysis specifications, offering a scalable path toward comprehensive automated vulnerability detection.

Abstract: ReDoS vulnerabilities are a type of denial of service software weakness that occurs when a regex is used to validate user-supplied input. In some cases, the regex matching process can take exponential time, leading to a denial of service. In this study, we examine and compare the effectiveness of five publicly-available regex detection tools, and one regex correction tool, using three datasets. We further perform an empirical analysis of all ReDoS vulnerabilities reported to the NVD database in order to understand how they differ from non-ReDoS vulnerabilities and glean insights about this type of weakness. We find that ReDoS vulnerabilities are becoming more prevalent and are much more likely to be exploited than non-ReDoS vulnerabilities. We further find that detection tools exhibit substantial disagreement on whether or not a given regex is vulnerable.

Abstract: Existing evaluation frameworks mostly assess only one part of AI agents, such as task completion (AgentBench) or security robustness (AgentDojo, ASB), rather than the complete pipeline of planning, tool selection, tool execution, memory and reasoning. Failures can occur at any stage, yet existing benchmarks rarely identify their precise source. AgentAudit evaluates the entire execution trace across ten capability, grounding, security and behavioural dimensions, namely instruction integrity, planner, memory, tool selection, tool invocation, tool correctness, alignment, tool faithfulness, security and execution integrity, combined with behavioural classification and failure attribution to pinpoint the exact stage responsible for an observed failure. AgentAudit can evaluate any LLM-based AI agent, since it attaches to the agent instead of replacing it. It reads only the recorded execution trace and does not interfere with how the agent runs, so it places no constraint on the agent's internal implementation. We evaluate five language models (OpenAI GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 5, Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash) across nine capability and adversarial tasks. Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5 obtain the highest mean Composite Trust Scores (95.1 and 80.6 out of 100, respectively), while Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash trail substantially (57.6, 45.7 and 22.6). All traces were scored by a single fixed judge model, which was itself one of the evaluated models, a limitation discussed in Section VII.E. More importantly, models with similar task-completion behaviour can diverge sharply in trustworthiness, as several non-frontier models are repeatedly classified Unsafe_Compliance on adversarial tasks rather than merely failing them, a distinction that pass/fail benchmarks cannot surface.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been ex- ploited to generate malware, but the effective- ness of guardrails for code generation secu- rity remains unclear. We introduce CS-Guard, the first benchmark to systematically evalu- ate guardrails for code generation security. It covers 1) text-to-code generation with 1000 high-quality malware-generation prompts, 7 jailbreak attacks, and a novel fictional scenario attack (FSA) that embeds malicious intent in a legitimate fictional software-development sce- nario; and 2) code-to-code generation with 331 code prompts spanning code infilling, code completion, and code translation. We empiri- cally evaluate 9 guardrails across seven LLMs. We find that current guardrails perform poorly against malicious code-generation re- quests: for text-to-code, the average attack success rate (ASR) after jailbreaks reaches about 50% for many guardrails; for code-to- code, average ASR approaches 100% on base LLMs and remains high across many guardrails (14.4% to nearly 100%). Our FSA also achieves ASR close to 100% across many guardrails, raising major reliability concerns for real-world software development. To sup- port future research, CS-Guard uses a modular three-layer guardrail taxonomy that lets devel- opers register guardrails for evaluation. We release the benchmark and data to enable fur- ther community evaluation.

Abstract: Automated vehicles rely on millions of lines of safety-critical software, yet general-purpose analyzers do not understand which code can affect vehicle motion. This study asks whether large language models (LLMs) with explicit automated-vehicle (AV) security knowledge improve weakness detection beyond rule-based tools. We developed an AV vulnerability taxonomy with 18 weakness classes from vulnerability records, security advisories, and AV-security literature, and integrated it into LLM-based Security Analysis for Automated Vehicles (LLMSec-AV). Evaluated on Autoware, the framework decomposed 770 translation units into 4,673 functions and analyzed 161 functions under four prompting conditions involving taxonomy context, retrieval from 374 prior disclosures, and multi-step analysis. Findings were compared with 46 weakness locations mined from upstream fixes and a flag-volume-matched permutation baseline. CodeQL, Semgrep, cppcheck, and the Clang Static Analyzer evaluated the same code, with AV-specific rules added to CodeQL and Semgrep. Generated fuzzing harnesses were tested using AFL++ and sanitizers. LLM conditions recovered up to 76% of the 46 known weakness locations, outperforming conventional analyzers. CodeQL, Semgrep, and the Clang Static Analyzer matched none, while cppcheck matched one despite 1,301 alerts. Unaided prompting achieved similar detection performance, showing that the taxonomy did not drive recall. However, taxonomy context increased the share of findings assigned to a weakness class from near zero to over 80%, improving interpretability and triage. Six of the 18 classes could not be directly represented as static-analysis rules. LLMSec-AV introduces an AV-specific, machine-readable vulnerability taxonomy for weakness discovery and shows that LLMs can complement conventional analyzers by identifying and organizing safety-relevant findings in real AV software.

Abstract: Software supply chain security has become increasingly critical due to the widespread reliance on third-party dependencies and the growing attack surface of modern software ecosystems. However, existing quantitative, measurement-based analysis and vulnerability management approaches remain largely fragmented and ecosystem-specific, limiting their ability to provide comparable risk assessments across environments. This paper presents a structured research plan, starting with a Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) to synthesize the current state of research and identify key gaps, highlighting the limitations in dependency modeling and vulnerability propagation analysis, particularly in the treatment of transitive dependencies and their real-world exploitability. Based on these insights, we argue for a unified measurement perspective capable of consistently representing and analyzing the cross-ecosystem dependency structure. We further identify emerging challenges introduced by AI-assisted software development, where coding LLMs are likely to contribute to new dependency patterns that are not captured by traditional Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools. These shifts motivate a rethink of dependency modeling to account for evolving software-generation practices and their long-term structural impact on software security.

Abstract: Tool-using language agents can delegate and revoke permissions while acting through external services. We show that two authorization histories can have identical current permissions and identical all-pairs reachability yet require opposite decisions after the same direct-edge revocation. We formalize the information needed to preserve such distinctions as a residual authorization state. We prove that exponentially many future-distinct states can share one fixed transitive closure, and give exact or tight asymptotic bounds on the state required by an exact monitor as delegation redundancy varies. ResidualAuth compiles these constructions into paired language-agent episodes. Across four open-weight models, a fixed 256-token summary solved 0-2/16 pairs, sham reads solved 0/16, and authenticated current-query reads solved 15-16/16. In a separate held-out online-memory diagnostic, exact ledger serializations fit all 128 four-coordinate pairs at both 768 and 1,024 tokens. At either cap, factually supported model-written memories sufficient for every prespecified continuation solved at most 1/128 pairs per model. A hard gate reduced eight observed unauthorized effects to zero without changing the preceding attempts. These results distinguish required authorization state, usable decision information, online state maintenance, and effect mediation.

Abstract: 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

Abstract: Tool-augmented language agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI). Unlike direct prompt injection, IPI hides adversarial instructions in untrusted tool outputs and can covertly alter the execution of a legitimate task. Defenses trained on fixed attacks may fail as an attacker changes its strategy, injection site, and payload. To address this problem, we formulate adaptive IPI as an asymmetric, partially observable, general-sum Markov game: a multi-turn attacker adapts payloads at reached tool-return sites from the public trajectory, while a tool-using defender must block the injected objective and complete the user task. We propose CoRL, a verifier-grounded co-evolution and repair framework with three stages: Attacker SFT initializes multi-turn attacks from successful trajectories; bilateral Co-PPO jointly trains both agents with role-specific rewards and historical opponent populations; and Defender SFT consolidates verifier-accepted teacher repairs for population-discovered failures. Across 1,514 clean, fixed-template, and adaptive executions per defender, CoRL reduces overall ASR by 38.5 points to 0.0% and raises utility by 13.1 points to 76.3%. Stage-wise and controlled ablations show positive contributions from online Co-PPO and population-mined repair, while external-benchmark evaluation indicates transfer in attack resistance. The defender balances safety and task utility under the evaluated attacks, while the retained attackers provide candidates for adaptive red-team evaluation.

Abstract: Security patches (SPs) are the main mechanism for fixing software vulnerabilities, yet a single vulnerability is not always resolved by a single patch: fixes may be completed incrementally, propagated across maintained branches, or replicated across related repositories. When patch records are incomplete, downstream users may observe only part of the required fix set and therefore apply only partial patching. However, comprehensive patch discovery remains difficult because the prevalence and causes of the multi-SP phenomenon are still poorly understood. In this paper, we present the first large-scale empirical study of multi-SP vulnerabilities. By merging four major vulnerability databases, we construct a dataset of 6,053 multi-SP CVEs with 16,260 SPs, showing that 20.6% of CVEs with patches involve multiple SPs and that merging databases increases recognized multi-SP CVE counts by 36-55% over any single source. We further analyze why a vulnerability is associated with multiple SPs and derive a two-level taxonomy with 6 categories and 16 sub-categories. Based on these findings, we develop SPectre, a taxonomy-driven prototype for comprehensive patch discovery. On 300 multi-SP CVEs, after manually verifying ground-truth SPs, SPectre improves multi-SP patch coverage over representative patch localization baselines, achieving 0.927 recall on same-repository cases and 0.873 recall on cross-repository cases after manual ground truth verification. On 100 recent CVEs recorded as single-patch by all public databases, SPectre further discovers 28 previously unreported SPs across 20 CVEs. Our results show that multi-SP vulnerabilities are both prevalent and systematically underreported, motivating stronger patch-completeness awareness, improved vulnerability database curation, and relation-aware security tooling.