arXiv AI

Retrieve, Reproduce, Reveal: Dissecting Retrieval-Augmented Software Vulnerability Detection

arXiv AI
Jun 8

RAVEN: Retrieval-Augmented Vulnerability Exploration Network for Memory Corruption Analysis in User Code and Binary Programs

arXiv:2604. 17948v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various cybersecurity tasks, including vulnerability classification, detection, and patching.

By Parteek Jamwal, Minghao Shao, Boyuan Chen, Achyuta Muthuvelan, Asini Subanya, Boubacar Ballo, Kashish Satija, Mariam Shafey, Mohamed Mahmoud, Moncif Dahaji Bouffi, Pasindu Wickramasinghe, Siyona Goel, Yaakulya Sabbani, Hakim Hacid, Mthandazo Ndhlovu, Eleanna Kafeza, Sanjay Rawat, Muhammad Shafique
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?

The paper introduces Porting Benchmark, a curated dataset of 1,234 security patch backporting cases that span cross-version, cross-branch, and cross-repository scenarios, along with a common evaluation framework. Five tools—spanning program analysis, LLM prompting, and LLM agents—are evaluated under aligned settings, revealing that performance varies significantly across tools and that complex patches (Type-IV) see a sharp drop in success rate. The study identifies four root-cause categories for failures and demonstrates that reference-based benchmark scores may not fully capture real-world remediation, as executable validation uncovers additional integration issues.

By Jincheng Yang, Yulong Fu, Chengwei Liu, Lyuye Zhang, Fangyuan Zhang, Bingyang Ren, Yang Liu, Hui Li
arXiv AI
Jun 17

ARVO: Atlas of Reproducible Vulnerabilities for Open-Source Software

arXiv:2606. 17283v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Achieving reproducibility, quantity, and diversity in vulnerability datasets has long been viewed as an inherent three-way trade-off, where improving one dimension often comes at the cost of the others.

By Xiang Mei, Jordi Del Castillo, Pulkit Singh Singaria, Haoran Xi, Abdelouahab Benchikh, Tiffany Bao, Ruoyu Wang, Yan Shoshitaishvili, Adam Doup\'e, Hammond Pearce, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt
arXiv AI
Sep 2

Athena: Vulnerability-Affected Library Identification via Knowledge Graph Completion

Athena is a graph-based system that identifies affected libraries for software vulnerabilities by modeling vulnerability databases as a knowledge graph and applying knowledge graph completion. It integrates CVEs, libraries, CWE types, CPE products, and software ecosystems, then predicts missing affected libraries using link prediction and refines results with a fine‑tuned LLM that incorporates graph embeddings. Experiments on the VulLib dataset show Athena outperforms four state‑of‑the‑art baselines, achieving a 32% higher average F1 score and demonstrating that a smaller KGC backbone can surpass larger LLM‑only approaches.

By Phong Trinh Duy, Trang Dang Yen, Hung Nguyen-Huu, Bach Le, Quyet-Thang Huynh, Dieu Hoang Vu, David Lo, Thanh Le-Cong
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 3

CodePoisonRAG: Knowledge Poisoning Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Code Generation

The paper introduces CodePoisonRAG, a framework that poisons retrieval-augmented code generation systems by transforming benign code artifacts into malicious ones. It injects CWE-specific vulnerabilities and false safety claims into a single task-matched artifact, achieving high success rates across multiple generators and even against a defense system. The study demonstrates that attackers can target and propagate specific weaknesses without altering the underlying language model.

By Varun Gadey, Ziad Marey, Alexandra Dmitrienko
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 18

Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?

The paper introduces Porting Benchmark, a dataset of 1,234 security patch backporting cases covering cross-version, cross-branch, and cross-repository scenarios, along with a unified evaluation framework. Five tools—spanning program analysis, LLM prompting, and LLM agents—are evaluated under aligned settings, revealing that performance varies significantly across tools and patch complexity, with success rates dropping sharply for structurally complex patches. The study identifies four root-cause categories for failures and demonstrates that reference-based benchmark scores may not fully reflect real-world remediation, as executable validation uncovers additional integration issues.