Fares Trad | Search arXiv

arXiv2026

Structured Security Explanations for Learning-Based Vulnerability Detection

Software vulnerability detection remains difficult because existing approaches rely on predefined analysis rules, learn vulnerability patterns implicitly from code and labels, or use large language models (LLMs) to make the final security judgment. It remains unclear whether structured descriptions of security-relevant program behavior can improve supervised detection. We present VulnLens, an explanation-augmented framework for binary C/C++ vulnerability detection that separates program-behavior analysis from the final decision. A label-blind LLM-based Explainer examines each function from seven fixed perspectives: data flow, memory access, object lifetime, arithmetic and type behavior, control flow, shared state, and external-resource access. Without receiving vulnerability labels or CWE information, it generates structured explanations. A supervised Detector combines source code and explanations through sequential cross-attention. We evaluate VulnLens on a PrimeVul-derived dataset covering ten CWE categories and test transfer to SecVulEval without retraining. On the 526-function PrimeVul test set, VulnLens achieves 75.5% accuracy and 77.2% F1, exceeding DeepSeek V4 Pro by 4.2 percentage points in accuracy and Gemini 2.5 Pro by 2.2 points in F1. Matched explanations improve F1 by 7.3 points over a separately trained code-only detector. On SecVulEval, VulnLens achieves 66.4% accuracy and 65.8% F1, outperforming DeepSeek V4 Pro by 7.6 points in accuracy and 20.0 points in F1, and Gemini 2.5 Pro by 16.6 points in accuracy and 7.8 points in F1.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Adversarial Testing of Automated Program Repair Agents for Security Vulnerabilities

Software agents with Large Language Models (LLMs) are designed for Automated Program Repair (APR) tasks, raising the possibility that, in the near future, APR agents will fix bugs automatically without much human intervention. Can we trust an APR agent to produce both functionally correct and secure code in such situations? What if attackers target production APR agents with adversarial issues that seem benign but may influence the agents to produce correct but insecure code? In this paper, we took a first step towards answering these questions by conducting an empirical study. First, we created SWEADV, a benchmark of 750 adversarial issue descriptions constructed from 150 repair tasks in SWE-bench Verified. For each repair task, we created five adversarial issue descriptions, one for each attack type: command execution, deserialization, path traversal, denial of service, and weak hashing. Second, we evaluated mini_swe APR agents from three LLM backends on SWEADV: GPT-5-Mini, MiniMax-M2.5, and DeepSeek-R. We found that on average, adversarial issue descriptions can induce malicious behaviors with successful repair in 51.7% of cases. Third, we investigated whether typical detection mechanisms are sufficient to prevent such malicious patches from being accepted. Pre-repair detection with LLM-as-judge on the adversarial issue descriptions resulted in an average detection accuracy of only 62.3%. Post-repair detection on adversarial APR patches using static analysis tools and LLM-as-judge achieved average detection accuracies of only 39.4% and 55.4%, respectively. We conclude that autonomous APR agents cannot be trusted yet in production deployment, given their susceptibility to adversarial attacks.

cs.CR↗