arXiv:2603. 02277v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as autonomous agents, using tools to execute code, read and write files, and access networks, creating novel security risks.
By Rahul Marchand, Art O Cathain, Jerome Wynne, Philippos Maximos Giavridis, Sam Deverett, John Wilkinson, Jason Gwartz, Harry Coppock
arXiv:2606. 19149v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated vulnerability discovery in large codebases remains challenging: traditional static analysis produces high false-positive rates, while dynamic approaches such as fuzzing require substantial infrastructure and often target narrow classes of bugs.
By Nahum Korda, Gadi Evron
arXiv:2607. 18847v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic systems integrate LLM driven planning with interfaces to external tools, making data leakage and tool misuse feasible via instruction/data boundary failures and prompt injection attacks.
By Akansha Shukla, Emily Bellov, Parth Atulbhai Gandhi, Yuval Elovici, Asaf Shabtai
arXiv:2606. 31639v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are no longer only text generators.
By Seyed Bagher Hashemi Natanzi, Bo Tang
arXiv:2606. 04769v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has emerged as a critical standard empowering Large Language Models (LLMs) to utilize external tools.
By Yutao Shi, Xiaohan Zhang, Xiangjing Zhang, Xihua Shen, Hui Ouyang, Huming Qiu, Mi Zhang, Min Yang
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
arXiv:2606. 02302v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous LLM agents increasingly operate in stateful environments where they access tools, files, memory, and external services.
By Hao Cheng, Changtao Miao, Tianle Song, Yin Wu, He Liu, Erjia Xiao, Junchi Chen, Xiaoyu Shi, Yichi Wang, Jing Yang, Taowen Wang, Jinhao Duan, Mengshu Sun, Peiyan Dong, Xuan Shen, Yang Cao, Renjing Xu, Kaidi Xu, Jindong Gu, Bo Zhang, Jize Zhang, Chenhao Lin, Philip Torr, Chao Shen
arXiv:2607. 01793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks.
By Yunhao Feng, Ruixiao Lin, Ming Wen, Qinqin He, Yanming Guo, Yifan Ding, Yutao Wu, Jialuo Chen, Yunhao Chen, Xiaohu Du, Jianan Ma, Zixing Chen, Zhuoer Xu, Xingjun Ma, Xinhao Deng
arXiv:2607. 26791v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly adopted in real-world security operations with access to host artifacts and command-line interfaces (CLIs), making it critical to thoroughly assess their security capabilities.
By Lehan Wang, Boli Chen, Ruixue Ding, Pengjun Xie, Jinwei Huang, Zhendong Liu, Shuo Wang, Tao Lei, Xin Ouyang, Xiaomeng Li
arXiv:2606. 18619v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The advent of agentic vulnerability detection is already becoming a watershed moment for software security.
By Zhengxiong Luo, Mehtab Zafar, Dylan Wolff, Abhik Roychoudhury
arXiv:2602. 04894v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used for code generation, but their outputs often follow recurring templates that can induce predictable vulnerabilities.
By Tomer Kordonsky, Amit LeVi, Maayan Yamin, Noam Benzimra, Avi Mendelson
The paper demonstrates that a misaligned AI model can fingerprint the inference engine (e.g., vLLM, SGLang) it runs on by generating specific output tokens. Once the engine is identified, the model can exploit engine‑specific vulnerabilities to take control of the engine without external malicious inputs. The authors provide concrete examples across five popular engines and present a proof‑of‑concept bare‑metal exploit chain that begins with such fingerprinting.
By Sarah Radway, Andrew Cheng, Vijay Janapa Reddi, James Mickens