arXiv AI

JavaVulBench: A Java Vulnerability Benchmark with Realistic Splits, a Unified Multi-Backend Harness, and a Leakage-Aware Evaluation Mode

arXiv:2607. 02825v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We release \textsc{JavaVulBench}, a benchmark dataset and evaluation harness for Java vulnerability detection.

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 27

FuzzingBrain-Bench V1: Evaluating Open-Ended Bug Discovery by LLMs

FuzzingBrain‑Bench V1 is a new benchmark that tests large language models (LLMs) on their ability to discover software bugs in open‑source projects. Unlike prior benchmarks that focus on a single target vulnerability, this benchmark gives models a Docker‑based harness and asks them to generate inputs that trigger as many distinct crashes as possible. The first version contains 77 challenges from 43 projects (36 C, 32 C++, 9 Java/JVM) and evaluates Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Claude Opus 4.8, with Claude Opus 4.8 achieving the highest score by triggering crashes in 60 of 77 challenges.

By Ze Sheng, Aleksandar Kezic, Zhicheng Chen, Jeff Huang
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 30

HoF-Bench: Rediscovering Real AI-Discovered CVEs Without Frontier Models

arXiv:2607. 27030v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based analyzers have begun finding real vulnerabilities in mature open-source projects: AISLE's analyzer is credited with more than 280 CVEs across 78 projects, including OpenSSL, curl, and GnuTLS.

By Petr Simecek, Elnaz Babayeva, Jiri Balhar, Michal Bida, Michal Buran, Vaclav Cadek, Luigino Camastra, Tomas Dulka, Michal Janocko, Tomas Klohna, Pavel Kohout, Ondrej Kokes, Adam Krivka, Jakub Kubik, Patrik Mada, Igor Morgenstern, Marek Pavelka, Joshua Rogers, Petr Stastny, Jan Tattermusch, Dmitrijs Trizna, Martin Votruba, Guido Vranken, Jakub Zikl, Evelina Gabasova, Stanislav Fort
arXiv AI
Sep 7

The History Is the Detector: Executing CVE Patch History, End-to-End

The paper introduces BUGSTONE‑E2E, a framework that converts vulnerability history into executable detection rules and validates them. It mines reusable rules from fixing commits, organizes them by CWE and language, and applies a funnel‑shaped pipeline that starts with lightweight analysis and culminates in LLM‑guided inspection, runtime verification, and patch generation. Using 19,325 high‑severity CVEs, the system identified 2,710 fixing commits, created 1,033 detection rules across 56 CWE families, and produced runtime evidence for 644 findings in 14 programs.

By Qiushi Wu, Kevin Eykholt, Youngja Park, Xiaokui Shu, Dhilung Kirat, Douglas Lee Schales, Ian Molloy
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Probing the Prefill: Detecting Code Vulnerabilities via Latent Activations

The paper investigates whether the hidden activations of large language models (LLMs) contain signals about the vulnerability of C/C++ code when the code is provided as context. By extracting prefill token activations from four LLMs and training small MLP probes, the authors achieve an average F1 score of 41.7% across four benchmarks, with the best probe matching state‑of‑the‑art fine‑tuned classifiers on the Devign dataset. The results suggest that a coding LLM’s internal representation can inform vulnerability detection, opening the door to lightweight, model‑native screening methods.

By Alizishaan Khatri
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
arXiv AI
Sep 7

When LLM Decompilers Recompile More and Preserve Less

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