The paper examines how large‑language‑model (LLM) decompilers, which produce clean, idiomatic C code, are currently evaluated mainly on recompilability and passing shipped tests. It shows that these metrics can mask significant behavioral differences: a decompiled function may recompile and pass all tests yet diverge on other inputs or lose disclosed vulnerabilities. To address this, the authors propose Decompile‑Diverge, a behavioral oracle that synthesizes drivers, fuzzes inputs, and compares the decompiled code’s behavior to the original, revealing divergences in up to 13% of cases and exposing gaps in current evaluation suites.
By Chang Liu, Edward Raff, Kristopher Micinski
arXiv:2606. 20502v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Whether LLMs scoring well on vulnerability benchmarks genuinely reason about security or merely pattern-match on contaminated data remains unresolved.
By Arastoo Zibaeirad, Marco Vieira
arXiv:2608. 08029v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Khatri et al.
By Alizishaan Khatri, Dun Li Chan
arXiv:2606. 05396v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Producing a labeled vulnerable code at scale is a recurring obstacle for learning-based vulnerability detection: mined corpora carry substantial label noise, and existing LLM-based augmentation propagates these inaccuracies because it transforms vulnerable seeds rather than synthesising vulnerabilities from a specification.
By Cristina Carleo, Pietro Liguori, Naghmeh Ivaki, Domenico Cotroneo
arXiv:2606. 01364v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The attack surface of a modern operating system is a haystack: thousands of signed binaries and millions of functions, almost none relevant to any given vulnerability.
By Michael J. Bommarito II
arXiv:2606. 29441v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Inference-time safety methods for large language models have proliferated, yet no systematic comparison exists.
By Subhadip Mitra
arXiv:2609.06229v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Vulnerability discovery is becoming an important ability of large language model (LLM) agents: agents that silently miss real defects leave critical...
By Yuanxiang Shi, Jiayi Lin, Xuanyong Lin, Liangcai Su, Yeheng Duan, Wei Wang, Qi Han, Bing Zhao, Wei Hu, Xander Xu, Chenxiong Qian
Inference-time safety methods for large language models have proliferated, yet no systematic comparison exists. We evaluate five defense paradigms (no defense, static steering, CAST, AlphaSteer, probe-gated) across seven instruction-tuned models (7-31B) and five attack types (GCG, AutoDAN, DeepInception, prefilling, intent laundering).
arXiv:2607. 02825v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We release \textsc{JavaVulBench}, a benchmark dataset and evaluation harness for Java vulnerability detection.
By Norbert Sandor Szolnoki, Gabor Antal
SpecGuard is an inference‑time backdoor detector that leverages speculative decoding—using a small draft model to propose tokens and a target model to verify them—without adding extra model computation. By monitoring the draft‑token acceptance rate, SpecGuard detects when a target model shifts toward attacker‑controlled behavior while the draft model does not, signaling a backdoor trigger. The method reliably identifies a range of backdoor types, including stealthy attacks that bypass input‑level filters, across multiple model families.
By Rui Wen, Ahmed Salem, Andrew Paverd, Mark Russinovich, Zheng Li
arXiv:2607. 26639v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A self-check defense asks the target model to assess a request before answering it; SAGE, the strongest published instance, reports an average 99% defense success rate.
By Haoyu Zhang, Shibo Zheng, Xiangchen Guan, Zhuoxi Wang, Zijian Xiao, Mohammad Zandsalimy, Shanu Sushmita
arXiv:2605. 26548v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Finding a real vulnerability in complicated systems is a challenging, long-horizon task that demands reasoning across an entire codebase to produce a working proof-of-concept (PoC).
By Hwiwon Lee, Jiawei Liu, Dongjun Kim, Wubing Xia, Ziqi Zhang, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Lingming Zhang