arXiv Machine Learning 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

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

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 18

Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?

The paper introduces Porting Benchmark, a dataset of 1,234 security patch backporting cases covering cross-version, cross-branch, and cross-repository scenarios, along with a unified evaluation framework. Five tools—spanning program analysis, LLM prompting, and LLM agents—are evaluated under aligned settings, revealing that performance varies significantly across tools and patch complexity, with success rates dropping sharply for structurally complex patches. The study identifies four root-cause categories for failures and demonstrates that reference-based benchmark scores may not fully reflect real-world remediation, as executable validation uncovers additional integration issues.

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 AI
1d ago

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