arXiv:2607. 23088v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, yet their security behavior in realistic development workflows remains underexplored.
By Lixun Ma, Ruolong Ma, Bei Wang, Feng Wei, Zhenguang Liu, Lorenzo Cavallaro, Wentao Chen
arXiv:2407.02395v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for program synthesis, yet they often generate code that is functionally plausible but ins...
By Jiexin Wang, Liuwen Cao, Xitong Luo, Yang Cao, Zhenghao Li, Yunyi Xiao, Mengchen Zhao, Adam Jatowt, Yi Cai
arXiv:2606. 16244v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely generate code with exploitable security flaws.
By Xiaoyun Xu, Lichao Wu, Jona te Lintelo, Siyu Zhang, Stjepan Picek
arXiv:2608. 16187v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-assisted development tools generate vulnerable code at significant rates, yet few automated mechanisms exist to detect, enrich, fix, and verify security issues at development velocity, particularly ones that ground remediation in real-world threat context.
By Mikhail Surikov
arXiv:2511. 20709v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based coding agents are now used to generate code from natural-language specifications, yet ensuring such code is both functionally correct and secure remains a challenge.
By Rupam Patir, Keyan Guo, Suvadra Barua, Abhijeet Pathak, Dinesh Gudimetla, Jiawei Guo, Hongxin Hu, Haipeng Cai
arXiv:2606. 03489v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation, they remain prone to replicating subtle yet critical vulnerabilities endemic to their training data.
By Wenqi Chen, Ziyan Zhang, Bing Wang, Lin Liu, Hengheng Zhang, Zhengsu Chen
arXiv:2606. 15123v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We study the task of CVE-conditioned exploit generation, where a model drafts proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits given software vulnerability context.
By Yiwei Chen, Lichi Li, Kai Cheung, Vinny Parla, Ganesh Sundaram
arXiv:2606. 31159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming software development, yet their use in security-critical contexts raises a key question: do models know when their generated code is insecure?
By Mohammed Latif Siddiq, Md. Nafiu Rahman, Joanna C. S. Santos
CS-Guard is a new benchmark that systematically evaluates guardrails for code generation security, covering 1,000 malware-generation prompts, 7 jailbreak attacks, and a novel fictional scenario attack (FSA) for text-to-code generation, as well as 331 code prompts for code-to-code generation. The study empirically tests nine guardrails across seven large language models, finding that many guardrails fail to prevent malicious code generation, with attack success rates reaching about 50% for text-to-code and up to nearly 100% for code-to-code and FSA scenarios. CS-Guard introduces a modular three-layer guardrail taxonomy and releases its benchmark and data to support future research.
By Jinyang Li, Mingyu Guo, Hung X. Nguyen
arXiv:2608.30025v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate source code containing vulnerabilities, yet little work studies the internal mechanisms that distingui...
By Hao Yan, Ziyu Yao
SecureVibe is a training recipe designed to enhance the security of vibe coding by explicitly targeting planning and testing for code security. It combines supervised fine‑tuning on a security suite with post‑training methods (SECUREVIBE_rl and SECUREVIBE_hg) that use verifiable execution feedback and hint‑based self‑supervision. The approach outperforms baselines on multiple security coding benchmarks, improving security pass@1 by up to 6.9 points on BaxBench and 11.5 points on SusVibes, while also boosting functionality pass@1 on both security and generic coding tasks.
By Danqing Wang, Baolin Peng, Zhepei Wei, Isadora White, Wenlin Yao, Hao Cheng, Qianhui Wu, Minseon Kim, Xingdi Yuan, Lei Li, Jianfeng Gao
While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation, they remain prone to replicating subtle yet critical vulnerabilities endemic to their training data. Current alignment techniques, such as Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), typically apply coarse-grained optimization at the sequence level.