arXiv AI

How Deterministic SAST and AI Security Agents Divide the Work: Coverage, Harness Policy and Cost in Snyk VulnBench 2.0

The study compares deterministic static application security testing (SAST) with AI-powered coding agents and security harnesses on the VulnBench 2.0 benchmark, which contains 108 curated vulnerabilities across 20 open‑source web applications. Nine productized configurations—including Snyk Code, Claude Code, Codex Security, and DeepSec—were evaluated under a blind protocol, with Snyk Code achieving 82.4% macro recall and Claude Code 79.3%. Together, the AI configurations identified 101 of the 108 vulnerabilities, surpassing any single tool, and also uncovered seven additional real vulnerabilities not present in the reference set, highlighting the complementary strengths of AI harnesses and deterministic SAST.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 28

How Deterministic SAST and AI Security Agents Divide the Work: Coverage, Harness Policy and Cost in Snyk VulnBench 2.0

The study compares deterministic static application security testing (SAST) with AI coding agents and AI security harnesses using the VulnBench 2.0 benchmark of 108 vulnerabilities across multiple languages. Nine productized configurations were evaluated, with Snyk Code achieving 82.4% macro recall and Claude Code at 79.3%; together they covered 101 of 108 vulnerabilities, exceeding any single configuration. The results show that AI engines’ effectiveness depends heavily on their harness policies and that AI tools can uncover real vulnerabilities absent from the reference set.

arXiv AI
Aug 13

The Next Challenge for Agentic Cybersecurity: A Realistic, Contamination-Free Reverse Engineering Benchmark

arXiv:2608. 11469v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are rapidly improving in cybersecurity capabilities when the source code is available for analysis, yet much of the software most consequential to cybersecurity, including malware, firmware, and proprietary applications, is available only as binaries.

By Jeremy Spence, Nicholas Assaderaghi, Jinhao Zhu, Nikil Ravi, Raluca Ada Popa, Guannan Wei, Yangruibo Ding, Zhuo Zhang
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 10

VEX-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Assessing Exploitability of Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

arXiv:2609.08040v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The software supply chain has become an increasingly exposed attack surface because of its reliance on intricate yet fragile dependencies. Existing d...

By Jiahao Shi, Edward Tsien, Yifeng Di, Hongjiao Zhang, Yuan Tang, Ronit Dey, Ilona Shishov, Gal Netanel, Zvi Grinberg, Vladimir Belousov, Bat-Zion Rotman, Ilan Pinto, Tianyi Zhang
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
Jun 9

SecureVibeBench: Benchmarking Secure Vibe Coding of AI Agents via Reconstructing Vulnerability-Introducing Scenarios

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 AI
Sep 12

Beyond Static Guarantees: Measuring the Static-Pass Dynamic-Fail Gap in Security-Sensitive and LLM-Generated Python Code

The paper introduces the Static‑Pass Dynamic‑Fail (SPDF) phenomenon, showing that static analysis can miss vulnerabilities that are exploitable at runtime. Using a three‑stage pipeline—static scanning, LLM‑driven CWE reasoning, and autonomous exploit verification—it evaluated 1,355 Python samples and found that 14.53% of samples that passed static checks were actually exploitable. The study highlights that static‑analysis success and runtime security are distinct assurance layers, especially for AI‑generated and security‑sensitive code.

By Jessica Pourleyli, Maitreyee Das Urmi, Glaucia Melo