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: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
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:2608. 16970v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based code generation is now embedded in mission-critical pipelines, but defenses against vulnerable output remain post-hoc -- static analyzers, fine-tuned classifiers, or an LLM judge that screen completed code, ignoring the generating model's own internal state.
By Alizishaan Khatri
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:2606. 04739v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for automated software vulnerability detection, particularly in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) settings.
By Sabrina Kaniewski, Fabian Schmidt, Tobias Heer
arXiv:2608. 06471v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite recent advances, frontier large language model (LLM) agents remain limited in discovering and patching complex vulnerabilities in real-world software.
By Amine Lbath, Manan Suri, Aurelien Delaitre, Vadim Okun, Massih-Reza Amini, Ram D. Sriram, Dinesh Manocha
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:2607. 02469v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior.
By Jiale Amber Wang, Kaiyuan Wang, Pengyu Nie
arXiv:2603. 13384v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Software vulnerabilities often depend on cross-file data flow, build options, framework conventions, and runtime guards, so isolated function classifiers produce fragile and poorly calibrated warnings.
By Renwei Meng, Haoyi Wu, Jingming Wang
arXiv:2509. 22097v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language model-powered code agents are rapidly transforming software engineering, yet the security risks of their generated code have become a critical concern.
By Junkai Chen, Huihui Huang, Yunbo Lyu, Junwen An, Jieke Shi, Chengran Yang, Ting Zhang, Haoye Tian, Yikun Li, Zhenhao Li, Xin Zhou, Xing Hu, David Lo
arXiv:2608. 12246v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases.
By Jin Lu, Xuening Han, Yang Zhong, Lin Tan, Kevin Luo, Andrew Gacek, Neha Rungta