Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2511.12950

Diffploit: Facilitating Cross-Version Exploit Migration for Open Source Library Vulnerabilities

Abstract

Exploits are commonly used to demonstrate the presence of library vulnerabilities and validate their impact across different versions. However, their direct application to alternative versions often fails due to breaking changes introduced during evolution. These failures stem from both changes in triggering conditions (e.g., API refactorings) and broken dynamic environments (e.g., build or runtime errors), which are challenging to interpret and adapt manually. Existing techniques primarily focus on code-level trace alignment through fuzzing, which is both time-consuming and insufficient for handling environment-level failures. Moreover, they often fall short when dealing with complicated triggering condition changes across versions. To overcome this, we propose Diffploit, an iterative, diff-driven exploit migration method structured around two key modules: the Context Module and the Migration Module. The Context Module dynamically constructs contexts derived from analyzing behavioral discrepancies between the target and reference versions, which capture the failure symptom and its related diff hunks. Leveraging these contexts, the Migration Module guides an LLM-based adaptation through an iterative feedback loop, balancing exploration of diff candidates and gradual refinement to resolve reproduction failures effectively. We evaluate Diffploit on a large-scale dataset containing 102 Java CVEs and 689 version-migration tasks across 79 libraries. Diffploit successfully migrates 84.2% exploits, outperforming the change-aware test repair tool TARGET by 52.0% and the rule-based tool in IDEA by 61.6%. Beyond technical effectiveness, Diffploit identifies 5 CVE reports with incorrect affected version ranges, three of which have been confirmed. It also discovers 111 unreported vulnerable versions in the GitHub Advisory Database.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zirui Chen, Zhipeng Xue, Jiayuan Zhou, Xing Hu, Xin Xia, Xiaohu Yang. 2026-08-12. Diffploit: Facilitating Cross-Version Exploit Migration for Open Source Library Vulnerabilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12950

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE