Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2602.04165

PoC-Gym: Towards More Reliable LLM-Assisted Proof-of-Concept Exploit Generation

Abstract

Recently Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used in security-related tasks, including generating proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits. Several LLM-assisted approaches have been proposed; they typically generate PoCs from vulnerability descriptions and use additional guidance. But, such approaches are often ineffective because the signals-such as printed markers, generated files, or runtime side effects-that they use for validation may not imply that the vulnerability is triggered. Research for more reliable PoC generation is in need but yet remains challenging. We propose PoC-Gym, a pipeline for LLM-based PoC generation for Java security vulnerabilities. PoC-Gym uses both static and dynamic information, e.g., CVE-tailored prompts, static traces, and coverage-based feedback, and iteratively generates PoC candidates. Each candidate goes through a series of validations: whether the execution is complete, manifests a success signal, and reaches the sink of the target trace. We evaluate PoC-Gym using 20 Java CVEs. Across 338 runs, 116 candidates pass PoC-Gym's runtime validation and 65 candidates pass post-hoc validation against the ground-truth vulnerable locations, covering 12 of the 20 CVEs. On the 14-CVE overlap with FaultLine, the strongest PoC-Gym configuration is post-hoc valid for 8 CVEs, while FaultLine reports success for 5 CVEs under its original evaluation criterion. But, given the complexity of PoC generation, PoC-Gym also generates many runtime-valid but post-hoc-invalid PoCs. To better understand how to achieve more reliable PoC generation, we present an in-depth analysis of such PoCs and identify common sources of failures. We believe that our work provides insights for future research.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Derin Gezgin, Amartya Das, Shinhae Kim, Zhengdong Huang, Nevena Stojkovic, Claire Wang. 2026-09-02. PoC-Gym: Towards More Reliable LLM-Assisted Proof-of-Concept Exploit Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04165

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

From Prompting to Engineering: A Research Agenda for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering

Prompt engineering is increasingly used across Software Engineering (SE) activities, including requirements analysis, coding, testing, documentation, repository analysis, and planning. Yet prompts and related instruction artifacts are often created and evolved through task-specific and informal practices, with limited support for their systematic evaluation, management, traceability, and governance. To examine how SE can contribute to the maturation of these practices, we organized a structured community discussion at the First International Workshop on Empirical Prompt Engineering for Software Engineering (PROMPT-SE), co-located with EASE 2026. Participants discussed current prompting practices, challenges to their adoption and evaluation, and future directions for integrating prompt engineering into software development. We synthesized these discussions into five areas: prompt artifacts and standardization; evaluation and benchmarking; lifecycle integration; human-AI collaboration and skills; and governance, privacy, and technical debt. Based on these areas, we outline a research agenda to move prompt engineering from predominantly ad hoc interactions toward more systematic, maintainable, evaluable, traceable, and governable SE practices.

cs.SE

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE

What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim Replay in Inspect Evals

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

cs.SE