Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.37396

Confidence-Guided Protocol IR for LLM-Aided Security Protocol Modeling

Abstract

Large language models offer a promising interface for translating natural-language protocol descriptions into formal security models, but their outputs remain difficult to trust without expert validation. In this paper, we present a human-in-the-loop framework for generating Tamarin-verifiable formal models of security protocols. Our key observation is that the main correctness bottleneck is the semantic accuracy rather than the syntactic validity of the intermediate protocol representation. To address this problem, we introduce a protocol intermediate representation (IR) that serves as a human-auditable semantic checkpoint between natural-language parsing and formal model generation. The IR explicitly captures protocol participants, message flows, value provenance, cryptographic operations, proof targets, and compromise assumptions. We further design an interactive interface that highlights uncertain fields and guides users to inspect the most critical semantic decisions based on model confidence before model generation. Rather than replacing formal-methods experts, our approach uses LLMs to produce auditable semantic drafts while leveraging verification tools to check the resulting formal models. Code and verification artifacts are available at https://github.com/laplace1002/TamarinAgent.git.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Siqi Li, Yufan Cai, Hongshu Wang, Xinyue Zuo, Zhe Hou, Jin Song Dong. 2026-09-29. Confidence-Guided Protocol IR for LLM-Aided Security Protocol Modeling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37396

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Context-Aware Spear Phishing: Generative AI-Enabled Attacks Against Individuals via Public Social Media Data

We demonstrate how publicly available social-media data and generative AI (GenAI) can be misused to automate and scale highly personalized, context-aware spear-phishing campaigns. With minimal attacker effort, a small amount of public activity per target is sufficient for GenAI models to extract interests and contextual cues, producing persuasive messages that mirror a target's style while bypassing generic content-moderation safeguards. We introduce a modular framework that combines multimodal signal extraction, communication-style profiling, and attack-type instantiation across seven strategies (baiting, scareware, honey trap, tailgating, impersonation, quid pro quo, and personalized emotional exploitation). We conduct a large-scale, multi-model evaluation covering thousands of generated emails and eight security-relevant criteria, benchmarking against a corpus of real-world phishing messages. The GenAI-produced emails exhibit markedly higher personalization, contextual grounding, and persuasive leverage. Importantly, a complementary user study corroborates these results, revealing that LLM-generated attacks consistently outperform APWG eCrimeX emails across eight dimensions while eliciting lower suspicion among human recipients. Finally, we measure and analyze the behavior of existing proactive, prompt-level defense mechanisms, which incorporate adaptive mechanisms, as well as two complementary defense approaches-policy-augmented SOTA safeguard models and system-instruction chain-of-thought moderation. We document how these defenses respond to contextualized and adaptive attack prompts, underscoring the need for platform-level safeguards that explicitly account for contextualized abuse at scale.

cs.CR↗

Defenses at Odds: Measuring and Explaining Defense Conflicts in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) may require additional defenses after deployment as risks and governance requirements evolve. Subsequent defenses can interact with earlier defenses, raising the question of their sequential compatibility. We study this question with CONFLICTEVAL, evaluating 144 ordered compositions of six defenses spanning safety, privacy, and fairness across six models. The resulting interactions are heterogeneous across defense pairs, application orders, and models. Notably, some compositions exhibit defense conflicts: the subsequent defense improves its target objective while weakening protection established by the earlier defense. We investigate these interactions through the directional compatibility of defense-induced changes in risk-relevant representations. Across 11 selected cases, we use activation interventions to assess which defense-induced representational changes support protection and examine how subsequent defenses affect these changes. We find that, in some conflict cases, subsequent defenses counteract representational changes supporting earlier protection, providing evidence for one possible pathway to defense conflicts. Building on this analysis, we propose Conflict-Triggered Directional Retention (CTDR), which penalizes opposing shifts along directions supporting earlier protection. On six selected conflicting compositions from this analysis, CTDR reduces first-objective regression while maintaining positive gains on the subsequent defense objective.

cs.CR↗

AI Security Research Should Better Incentivize Defense Research

This work examines an imbalance in artificial intelligence (AI) security research: the field tends to produce more work on attacking AI systems than on defending them. Drawing on related academic papers, we find biased attack-to-defense ratios across subfields, including federated learning, speech recognition, membership inference, large language models, etc. The imbalance possibly means far beyond a simple count: attack papers are routinely evaluated under favorable conditions that make threats look more severe than they are in practice, while defenses are held to a stricter standard that few can meet. The result is a literature rich in demonstrated vulnerabilities and thin on usable and deployed protections. We thus argue that AI security research should better incentivize defense research.

cs.CR↗