Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How Good LLM-Generated Password Policies Are?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.08320 v2 pith:XGVI3XTZ submitted 2025-06-10 cs.CR cs.AI

How Good LLM-Generated Password Policies Are?

classification cs.CR cs.AI
keywords llmslanguageaccessconsistencycontrolllm-generatednaturalaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative AI technologies, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), are rapidly being adopted across industry, academia, and government sectors, owing to their remarkable capabilities in natural language processing. However, despite their strengths, the inconsistency and unpredictability of LLM outputs present substantial challenges, especially in security-critical domains such as access control. One critical issue that emerges prominently is the consistency of LLM-generated responses, which is paramount for ensuring secure and reliable operations. In this paper, we study the application of LLMs within the context of Cybersecurity Access Control Systems. Specifically, we investigate the consistency and accuracy of LLM-generated password policies, translating natural language prompts into executable pwquality$.$conf configuration files. Our experimental methodology adopts two distinct approaches: firstly, we utilize pre-trained LLMs to generate configuration files purely from natural language prompts without additional guidance. Secondly, we provide these models with official pwquality$.$conf documentation to serve as an informative baseline. We systematically assess the soundness, accuracy, and consistency of these AI-generated configurations. Our findings underscore significant challenges in the current generation of LLMs and contribute valuable insights into refining the deployment of LLMs in Access Control Systems.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LLM-Assisted Authentication and Fraud Detection

    cs.CR 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLM semantic authentication accepts 99.5% of legitimate non-exact answers at 0.1% false-accept rate while RAG fraud detection lowers false positives from 17.2% to 3.5%.