The paper introduces a deterministic AI security risk assessment framework that transforms diverse engineering artefacts into a standardized Control ID taxonomy scored on a four‑level ordinal scale. It compiles technique‑level predicates from a fixed MITRE ATLAS snapshot, linking each control to mitigation and producing traceable feasibility and impact outputs. The framework is formally verified for boundedness, totality, consistency, and monotonicity, and is evaluated on five open‑source AI projects, showing that strengthened controls lower feasibility scores while residual risks persist when core controls are missing.
arXiv:2608. 07446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks.
arXiv:2609.13731v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The transition from passive foundation models to autonomous, goal-directed agentic AI systems has introduced unprecedented capabilities by coupling rec...
arXiv:2608. 04921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments.
arXiv:2609.22664v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Research on large language model agents for penetration testing is evaluated almost entirely by capability: whether the agent captures a flag or repr...
Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from simple code completion tools to repository‑scale agents capable of retrieving context, editing files, executing tools, and engaging in security‑sensitive workflows. A structured survey up to May 31 2026 reviews LLM work across software engineering and security tasks, adaptation mechanisms, artifact granularity, and evaluation design, and introduces an assurance framework that separates functional correctness, security, operational reliability, evidence provenance, and agent authority. The review highlights that while execution feedback and repository access improve engineering task completion, they do not guarantee security, and static‑analysis labels rarely ensure deployable correctness; it also identifies common validity threats and proposes a minimum reporting protocol and a research agenda focused on jointly secure‑and‑functional benchmarks, repository‑scale threat models, calibrated human oversight, longitudinal maintainability evidence, and reproducible agent evaluation.
arXiv:2609.23894v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI extends LLM security beyond generated content to persistent state, autonomous actions, tool use, and interactions with humans and other ag...
The paper introduces the AI Assessment Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source framework designed to support technical assessment in AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) mandated by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. It outlines 11 architectural and governance requirements for infrastructure that enables large‑scale, structured technical testing, and presents a catalogue of tests, a shared data model, dashboards, and reporting tools that harmonise heterogeneous outputs. An early‑stage pilot demonstrated the framework’s harmonisation and reporting capabilities within a live AIRS engagement, contributing to an official Exit Report.
arXiv:2606. 30219v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify.
arXiv:2606. 03453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vulnerability disclosure volumes now far exceed organizational assessment capacity, yet three adjacent research communities (proof-of-concept generation, vulnerability prioritization, and detection rule engineering) operate largely in isolation.
arXiv:2607. 07474v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic red-teaming benchmarks report whether an injected agent was compromised as a single bit: the attack succeeded, or it did not.
arXiv:2605. 10834v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI pentesting agents are increasingly credible as offensive security systems, but current benchmarks still provide limited guidance on which will perform best in real-world targets.
arXiv:2512. 18542v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI coding assistants produce vulnerable code in 45\% of security-relevant scenarios~\cite{veracode2025}, yet no public training dataset teaches both traditional web security and AI/ML-specific defenses in a format suitable for instruction tuning.