Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 208 references

Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This survey integrates LLM applications, vulnerabilities, and defenses in cybersecurity into one map.

desk verdict Useful taxonomy, unreliable citations: worth reading, not worth citing until the references are cleaned up. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13629 v1 pith:6ROTDXJT submitted 2025-07-18 cs.CR cs.AIcs.LG

Niveen O. Jaffal , Mohammed Alkhanafseh , David Mohaisen This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.LG
keywords LLMscybersecuritypromptinjectionjailbreakingbackdoorattacksdatapoisoningsecuritysurveythreatdetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey tries to establish that large language models have penetrated cybersecurity so broadly that only a unified map can make sense of the field. It argues for a two-part synthesis: an enumeration of LLM applications across 32 security tasks in eight domains, and a matching of four attack families against four families of defense. The point of the integration is that the same models that power threat detection, fuzzing, and malware analysis are themselves vulnerable to prompt injection, jailbreaking, data poisoning, and backdoor attacks, so secure deployment requires treating the tool and the threat as one problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a two-part classification system. The first part is the eight-domain taxonomy of security tasks (Table 3), which organizes 32 tasks into network security, software and system security, information and content security, hardware security, blockchain security, cloud security, incident response and threat intelligence, and IoT security. The second part is the attack-defense pairing (Table 4 and Figure 3), which maps four attack families — backdoor, data poisoning, prompt injection, and jailbreaking — onto defense families that include red teaming, content filtering, safety fine-tuning, and model merging. These two structures do the argumentative work: the taxonomy establishes breadth, and the pairing establishes that vulnerabilities and defenses are intrinsic to LLM deployment, not external concerns.

What would settle it

An independent check of the reference list would settle the central claim: resolve every in-text citation marker (including the missing marker for LATTE in Section 4.2.1 and the Houssel et al. marker [7] that currently resolves to the Chinchilla paper) and verify that each cited study supports the sentence that cites it; if the markers do not check out, the survey's comprehensiveness and integration claims cannot be audited. A second check would re-derive the 32-task, eight-domain categorization from the same 172 papers and see whether the counts reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLM use in cybersecurity is wider than any prior survey captured, and that the application landscape and the vulnerability landscape must be read together. The paper categorizes LLM applications into eight domains — network, software and system, information and content, hardware, blockchain, cloud, incident response and threat intelligence, and IoT — covering 32 distinct security tasks. It then pairs four major attack types (backdoor, data poisoning, prompt injection, jailbreaking) with defense techniques such as red teaming, content filtering, safety fine-tuning, and model merging. In the authors' telling, this is the first survey to integrate these two sides, and the integration is what reveals design gaps, such as the finding that over half of LLM-generated code in one benchmark contained vulnerabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The synthesis is only as reliable as the accuracy of the 172 cited studies and their reference markers, and several markers in the paper are missing or mismatched, which a reader would need to resolve before trusting the survey's counts and attributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can use the eight-domain map to locate which security tasks already have LLM-based tooling and which domains remain thin.
  • The attack-defense pairing gives deployment teams a structured menu for hardening LLM-based security tools against the four main attack families.
  • The reported result that over 50% of LLM-generated code in the FormAI dataset contained vulnerabilities implies that any LLM-generated code entering security pipelines must be screened before use.
  • The survey's identification of underexplored domains — IoT, cloud, hardware, and blockchain — points to where the next generation of LLM security research is likely to concentrate.
  • Because the same capabilities that detect threats can also generate attacks, the survey implies that defensive and offensive LLM use cannot be governed separately.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The survey's separation of applications from vulnerabilities obscures a feedback loop the paper hints at: LLMs used for fuzzing and penetration testing are themselves prompt-injectable, so a compromised model could silently weaken the defenses it is supposed to operate.
  • The eight-domain, 32-task count is a snapshot of the literature through early 2025; a live version of this taxonomy could be re-run at intervals to track the field's growth, and the count would likely rise as autonomous agent security and AI supply-chain security become distinct categories.
  • The citation inconsistencies suggest that a versioned, machine-checkable reference database with author-contributed markers would make future surveys auditable; a testable extension is to rebuild the taxonomy from the same 172 papers using resolved markers and compare the resulting counts.
  • The 50% vulnerable-code finding, if it holds across other datasets, implies that any security application that relies on LLM-generated code should assume the code is vulnerable until a verifier proves otherwise, a stronger operational rule than the paper states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of LLM applications in cybersecurity, organized around eight domains and 32 tasks, followed by a catalog of LLM vulnerabilities (data poisoning, backdoor attacks, prompt injection, jailbreaking) and corresponding defenses. The authors claim to be the first to integrate the application landscape with the attack surface and defense mechanisms, and they derive their inventory from 172 selected publications from 2021–2024. The paper provides multiple tables and figures mapping papers to tasks and defense techniques.

Significance. If the bibliographic issues were repaired, the survey would have real value: the eight-domain taxonomy of Figure 2 and Table 3 is a sensible organizational scheme, Table 2 condenses many application papers, and Tables 4–5 provide a compact comparison of defense techniques. The simultaneous treatment of applications, attacks, and defenses in one document is a service to newcomers. However, in its current form the central claim of being 'comprehensive' and 'first' is not verifiable because several numeric citation markers do not point to the cited works, and at least one reference is unresolved.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.1] The LATTE tool is introduced as 'Liu et al. [?]', with no resolved reference. Since LATTE is used in the Takeaway to demonstrate the robustness of LLM-based vulnerability detection, this unresolved placeholder prevents readers from tracing a substantive claim. Please supply the correct citation and renumber the reference list accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.5.2 and Table 2] The blockchain anomaly-detection result is attributed to 'Gai et al. [52]' in both the text and Table 2, but reference [52] is Luo et al., 'BC4LLM: A perspective of trusted artificial intelligence when blockchain meets large language models' (Neurocomputing, 2024). This is not the BLOCKGPT paper. The claim about LLM-based transaction anomaly detection is therefore not traceable; either add the correct Gai et al. reference or replace the citation marker.
  3. [Section 1] The Introduction cites 'Chinchilla [7]', but reference [7] is Houssel et al., 'Towards explainable network intrusion detection using large language models' (2024). This is a foundational-model misattribution, not a style issue. Please recheck all numeric markers attached to model names in the Introduction, since this error indicates the numbering cannot be trusted.
  4. [Section 2 and Figure 1] The study-selection accounting is internally inconsistent: 15+25+64+68 = 172 studies, but the breakdown '114 studies on applications, 12 on attacks, and 31 on defense techniques' sums to 157. Figure 1 adds an unexplained 'Others 17' category, giving 174, which still does not reconcile to 172. Please provide a single consistent accounting of the corpus.
  5. [Table 2] The row 'Liu et al. [38]' describes CharBERT-based URL and traffic detection, but reference [38] is Lanka et al., 'Intelligent threat detection – AI-driven analysis of honeypot data' (Electronics, 2024). The same number is used correctly in Section 4.6.3 for the honeypot study, so the table's source mapping is internally inconsistent. The row should presumably cite Liu et al. [57], and the authors should audit the rest of the table for similar mismatches.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The text says 'Tables 2 and 2' present the LLM-based solutions, but only one Table 2 appears in the manuscript. Please add the missing part or correct the pointer.
  2. [Reference list] Reference [50] has no author names ('H.-c. I. Cybersecurity'), making it impossible to verify the OllaBench citation. Please complete the entry.
  3. [Multiple locations] There are numerous spelling errors in author names and terms, e.g., 'Gangualiet al.' (should be Ganguli), 'Ribeiroetet al.', 'Kupmaret al.', 'Alone et al.', 'Contiella', 'Safty Fine Tuning' in the Table 5 header, and 'more 50%' in Section 4.2.1. A thorough proofread is needed.
  4. [Section 2] The stated time window is 2021–2024, yet several references, including [26] and [174], are dated 2025. Either adjust the selection criterion or the reported counts.
  5. [Figure 1] The category 'Others 17' is not defined in the text. If it represents papers outside the application/attack/defense breakdown, it should be explained and included in the Section 2 accounting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the survey's synthesis is descriptive, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This manuscript is a literature survey rather than a derivation chain: it contains no fitted parameters, no equations, and no predictive claim that is constructed from its own inputs. Its central assertions, such as being 'the first survey to integrate the application landscape in cybersecurity with the attack surface and defense mechanisms' and covering '32 security tasks spanning eight distinct security domains,' are organizational claims about the surveyed literature, not results derived from the authors' prior work. The self-citations that appear, notably [27], [28], and the cluster [11-27], are used as supporting examples of prior cybersecurity and LLM-related work; the taxonomy, vulnerability catalog, and defense enumeration do not rely on those papers for their content. The unresolved citation markers and mismatches (e.g., 'Liu et al. [?]', Houssel et al. cited as [7], BLOCKGPT attributed to [52]) are correctness and verifiability problems in the survey's reference handling, not instances of a claim reducing to its own inputs. No exhibited step fits the enumerated circularity patterns, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with a score reflecting only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its conclusions rest on the assumptions listed above; the citation errors directly undermine the first assumption.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 172 selected studies are accurately represented and correctly cited.
    The survey's synthesis depends on the fidelity of its representation of prior work; multiple citation mismatches (e.g., [7], [52]) show this assumption is violated.
  • domain assumption The selection of studies from 2021-2024 is representative of the LLM-in-cybersecurity literature.
    The methodology gives only broad selection criteria, not a reproducible protocol, so representativeness is not established.
  • ad hoc to paper The eight-domain, 32-task taxonomy is a natural and complete organization of LLM security work.
    The taxonomy is an editorial choice presented without derivation from data or an established framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ROTDXJT

@misc{pith2026250713629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ROTDXJT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13629}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming cybersecurity by enabling intelligent, adaptive, and automated approaches to threat detection, vulnerability assessment, and incident response. With their advanced language understanding and contextual reasoning, LLMs surpass traditional methods in tackling challenges across domains such as IoT, blockchain, and hardware security. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of LLM applications in cybersecurity, focusing on two core areas: (1) the integration of LLMs into key cybersecurity domains, and (2) the vulnerabilities of LLMs themselves, along with mitigation strategies. By synthesizing recent advancements and identifying key limitations, this work offers practical insights and strategic recommendations for leveraging LLMs to build secure, scalable, and future-ready cyber defense systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comprehensive Survey Studies Analysis attacks, and defenses in selected studies, and the representation of AI and security venues. This structured approach ensures a comprehensive analysis. 3 RELATED REVIEWS We present in this section several previously selected surveys that make significant contributions; these surveys encompass a detailed and thorough examination of key aspects related to LLM, includ￾ing the datas… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cybersecurity Domains and LLM Based Applica [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Security Attacks and Defense Techniques 5.2 Adversarial Attacks Adversarial attacks are a key vulnerability in LLMs, involving input manipulation to trigger errors or unintended output [70]. These attacks exploit the sensitivity of a model to minor input changes to deceive it. In DNNs, such attacks disrupt operations by altering input data, and this also applies to LLMs, with potential effects such as spreading misi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

208 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Generative ai and large language models for cyber security: All insights you need,

    M. A. Ferrag, F. Alwahedi, A. Battah, B. Cherif, A. Mechri, and N. Tihanyi, “Generative ai and large language models for cyber security: All insights you need, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12750

    arXiv 2024

  2. [52]

    BC4LLM: A perspective of trusted artificial intelligence when blockchain meets large language models,

    H. Luo, J. Luo, and A. V. Vasilakos, “BC4LLM: A perspective of trusted artificial intelligence when blockchain meets large language models, ” Neurocomputing, vol. 599, p. 128089, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128089

    arXiv 2024

  3. [7]

    Towards explainable network intrusion detection using large language models,

    P. R. B. Houssel, P. Singh, S. Layeghy, and M. Portmann, “Towards explainable network intrusion detection using large language models, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04342

    arXiv 2024

  4. [38]

    Intelligent threat detection–ai-driven analysis of honeypot data to counter cyber threats,

    P. Lanka, K. Gupta, and C. Varol, “Intelligent threat detection–ai-driven analysis of honeypot data to counter cyber threats, ”Electronics, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 2465, 2024

    2024

  5. [57]

    PMANet: Malicious URL detection via post-trained language model guided multi-level feature attention network

    R. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Xu, Z. Qin, Y. Liu, and Z. Cao, “Malicious URL detection via pretrained language model guided multi-level feature attention network, ” CoRR, vol. abs/2311.12372, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.12372

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.12372 2023

  6. [1]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

    arXiv 2023

  7. [2]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, ” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    arXiv 2019

  8. [3]

    Gpt-3.5,

    OpenAI, “Gpt-3.5, ” https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5, 2022, ac- cessed: January 11, 2025

    2022

Show all 208 references
  1. [4]

    ——, “Gpt-4, ” https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4-and-gpt-4-turbo, 2023, accessed: January 11, 2025

    2023

  2. [5]

    When chatgpt meets smart contract vulnerability detection: How far are we?

    C. Chen, J. Su, J. Chen, Y. Wang, T. Bi, J. Yu, Y. Wang, X. Lin, T. Chen, and Z. Zheng, “When chatgpt meets smart contract vulnerability detection: How far are we?” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05520

    2024 arXiv

  3. [6]

    Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback,

    Y. Bai, S. Kadavath, S. Kundu, A. Askell, J. Kernion, A. Jones, A. Chen, A. Goldie, A. Mirhoseini, C. McKinnon, C. Chen, C. Olsson, C. Olah, D. Hernandez, D. Drain, D. Ganguli, D. Li, E. Tran-Johnson, E. Perez, J. Kerr, J. Mueller, J. Ladish, J. Landau, K. Ndousse, K. Lukosuit...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [8]

    Generator-retriever-generator approach for open-domain question answering,

    A. Abdallah and A. Jatowt, “Generator-retriever-generator approach for open-domain question answering, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2307.11278

    2024 arXiv

  5. [9]

    Dialogbench: Evaluating llms as human-like dialogue systems,

    J. Ou, J. Lu, C. Liu, Y. Tang, F. Zhang, D. Zhang, and K. Gai, “Dialogbench: Evaluating llms as human-like dialogue systems, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01677

    2024 arXiv

  6. [10]

    Open-universe indoor scene generation using llm program synthesis and uncurated object databases,

    R. Aguina-Kang, M. Gumin, D. H. Han, S. Morris, S. J. Yoo, A. Ganeshan, R. K. Jones, Q. A. Wei, K. Fu, and D. Ritchie, “Open-universe indoor scene generation using llm program synthesis and uncurated object databases, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09675

    2024 arXiv

  7. [11]

    Unveiling zeus: automated classification of malware samples,

    A. Mohaisen and O. Alrawi, “Unveiling zeus: automated classification of malware samples, ” in22nd International World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’13, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 13-17, 2013, Companion Volume , L. Carr, A. H. F. Laender, B. F. Lóscio, I. King, M. Fontoura, D. Vra...

    2013

  8. [12]

    AMAL: high-fidelity, behavior- based automated malware analysis and classification,

    A. Mohaisen, O. Alrawi, and M. Mohaisen, “AMAL: high-fidelity, behavior- based automated malware analysis and classification, ”Comput. Secur., vol. 52, pp. 251–266, 2015

    2015

  9. [13]

    Andro-dumpsys: Anti- malware system based on the similarity of malware creator and malware centric information,

    J. Jang, H. Kang, J. Woo, A. Mohaisen, and H. K. Kim, “Andro-dumpsys: Anti- malware system based on the similarity of malware creator and malware centric information, ”Comput. Secur., vol. 58, pp. 125–138, 2016

    2016

  10. [14]

    Android malware detection using complex-flows,

    F. Shen, J. D. Vecchio, A. Mohaisen, S. Y. Ko, and L. Ziarek, “Android malware detection using complex-flows, ” in37th IEEE International Conference on Dis- tributed Computing Systems, ICDCS 2017, Atlanta, GA, USA, June 5-8, 2017, K. Lee and L. Liu, Eds. IEEE Computer Society,...

    2017

  11. [15]

    Iot malware ecosystem in the wild: a glimpse into analysis and exposures,

    J. Choi, A. Anwar, H. Alasmary, J. Spaulding, D. Nyang, and A. Mohaisen, “Iot malware ecosystem in the wild: a glimpse into analysis and exposures, ” inPro- ceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing, SEC 2019, Arlington, Virginia, USA, November 7-9, 2019 , S. Ch...

    2019

  12. [16]

    Adversarial learning attacks on graph-based iot malware detection systems,

    A. Abusnaina, A. Khormali, H. Alasmary, J. Park, A. Anwar, and A. Mohaisen, “Adversarial learning attacks on graph-based iot malware detection systems, ” in 39th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS 2019, Dallas, TX, USA, July 7-10, 2019 . IEEE...

    2019

  13. [17]

    Analyzing and detecting emerging internet of things malware: A graph-based approach,

    H. Alasmary, A. Khormali, A. Anwar, J. Park, J. Choi, A. Abusnaina, A. Awad, D. Nyang, and A. Mohaisen, “Analyzing and detecting emerging internet of things malware: A graph-based approach, ”IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 8977–8988, 2019

    2019

  14. [18]

    Android malware detection using complex-flows,

    F. Shen, J. D. Vecchio, A. Mohaisen, S. Y. Ko, and L. Ziarek, “Android malware detection using complex-flows, ”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. , vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1231–1245, 2019

    2019

  15. [19]

    Soteria: Detecting adversarial examples in control flow graph- based malware classifiers,

    H. Alasmary, A. Abusnaina, R. Jang, M. Abuhamad, A. Anwar, D. Nyang, and D. Mohaisen, “Soteria: Detecting adversarial examples in control flow graph- based malware classifiers, ” in40th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS 2020, Singapore, Nove...

    2020

  16. [20]

    Statically dissecting internet of things malware: Analysis, characterization, and detection,

    A. Anwar, H. Alasmary, J. Park, A. Wang, S. Chen, and D. Mohaisen, “Statically dissecting internet of things malware: Analysis, characterization, and detection, ” in Information and Communications Security - 22nd International Conference, ICICS 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, Augus...

    2020

  17. [21]

    Systemically evaluating the robustness of ml-based iot malware detectors,

    A. Abusnaina, A. Anwar, S. Alshamrani, A. Alabduljabbar, R. Jang, D. Nyang, and D. Mohaisen, “Systemically evaluating the robustness of ml-based iot malware detectors, ” in 51st Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN 2021, Taipei, Tai...

    2021

  18. [22]

    Systematically evaluating the robustness of ml-based iot malware detection systems,

    ——, “Systematically evaluating the robustness of ml-based iot malware detection systems, ” in25th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses, RAID 2022, Limassol, Cyprus, October 26-28, 2022 . ACM, 2022, pp. 308–320

    2022

  19. [23]

    Understanding internet of things malware by analyzing endpoints in their static artifacts,

    J. Choi, A. Anwar, A. Alabduljabbar, H. Alasmary, J. Spaulding, A. Wang, S. Chen, D. Nyang, A. Awad, and D. Mohaisen, “Understanding internet of things malware by analyzing endpoints in their static artifacts, ”Comput. Networks, vol. 206, p. 108768, 2022

    2022

  20. [24]

    DL-FHMC: deep learning-based fine-grained hierarchical learning approach for robust malware classification,

    A. Abusnaina, M. Abuhamad, H. Alasmary, A. Anwar, R. Jang, S. Salem, D. Nyang, and D. Mohaisen, “DL-FHMC: deep learning-based fine-grained hierarchical learning approach for robust malware classification, ”IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 3432–3447, 2022

    2022

  21. [25]

    Exposing the limitations of machine learning for malware detection under concept drift,

    A. Abusnaina, A. Anwar, M. Saad, A. Alabduljabbar, R. Jang, S. Salem, and D. Mo- haisen, “Exposing the limitations of machine learning for malware detection under concept drift, ” inWeb Information Systems Engineering - WISE 2024 - 25th International Conference, Doha, Qatar, D...

    2024

  22. [26]

    Semantics-preserving node injection attacks against gnn-based ACFG malware classifiers,

    D. Zapzalka, S. Salem, and D. Mohaisen, “Semantics-preserving node injection attacks against gnn-based ACFG malware classifiers, ”IEEE Trans. Dependable Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Niveen O. Jaffal, Mohammed Alkhanafseh, and David Mohaisen Secur. Comput., vol...

    2017

  23. [27]

    Through the looking glass: Llm-based analysis of AR/VR android applications privacy policies,

    A. Alghamdi and D. Mohaisen, “Through the looking glass: Llm-based analysis of AR/VR android applications privacy policies, ” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, ICMLA 2024, Miami, FL, USA, December 18-20, 2024 , M. A. Wani, P. Angelov, F. Luo, M. ...

    2024

  24. [28]

    Security and quality in llm-generated code: A multi-language, multi-model analysis,

    M. Kharma, S. Choi, M. AlKhanafseh, and D. Mohaisen, “Security and quality in llm-generated code: A multi-language, multi-model analysis, ” CoRR, vol. abs/2502.01853, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502. 01853

    2025 doi

  25. [29]

    Llm for soc security: A paradigm shift,

    D. Saha, S. Tarek, K. Yahyaei, S. K. Saha, J. Zhou, M. Tehranipoor, and F. Farahmandi, “Llm for soc security: A paradigm shift, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06046

    2023 arXiv

  26. [30]

    Large language models for blockchain security: A systematic literature review,

    Z. He, Z. Li, S. Yang, A. Qiao, X. Zhang, X. Luo, and T. Chen, “Large language models for blockchain security: A systematic literature review, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14280

    2024 arXiv

  27. [31]

    Large language models for cyber security: A systematic literature review,

    H. Xu, S. Wang, N. Li, K. Wang, Y. Zhao, K. Chen, T. Yu, Y. Liu, and H. Wang, “Large language models for cyber security: A systematic literature review, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04760

    2024

  28. [32]

    Review of generative ai methods in cybersecurity,

    Y. Yigit, W. J. Buchanan, M. G. Tehrani, and L. Maglaras, “Review of generative ai methods in cybersecurity, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08701

    2024 arXiv

  29. [33]

    Llms for cyber security: New opportunities,

    D. M. Divakaran and S. T. Peddinti, “Llms for cyber security: New opportunities, ”

  30. [35]

    Generative pre- trained transformer-based reinforcement learning for testing web application firewalls,

    H. Liang, X. Li, D. Xiao, J. Liu, Y. Zhou, A. Wang, and J. Li, “Generative pre- trained transformer-based reinforcement learning for testing web application firewalls, ”IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 309–324, 2024

    2024

  31. [36]

    Deepsqli: deep semantic learning for testing sql injection,

    M. Liu, K. Li, and T.-A. Chen, “Deepsqli: deep semantic learning for testing sql injection, ” Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis , 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:218870218

    2020

  32. [37]

    Large language model guided protocol fuzzing,

    R. Meng, M. Mirchev, M. Böhme, and A. Roychoudhury, “Large language model guided protocol fuzzing, ” in31st Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2024, San Diego, California, USA, February 26 - March 1, 2024. The Internet Society, 2024. [Online]. Avail...

    2024

  33. [39]

    Llms killed the script kiddie: How agents supported by large language models change the landscape of network threat testing,

    S. Moskal, S. Laney, E. Hemberg, and U. O’Reilly, “Llms killed the script kiddie: How agents supported by large language models change the landscape of network threat testing, ”CoRR, vol. abs/2310.06936, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.06936

    2023 doi arXiv

  34. [40]

    Maximizing penetration testing success with effective reconnais- sance techniques using chatgpt,

    S. Temara, “Maximizing penetration testing success with effective reconnais- sance techniques using chatgpt, ” CoRR, vol. abs/2307.06391, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.06391

    2023 doi arXiv

  35. [41]

    The formai dataset: Generative AI in software security through the lens of formal verification,

    N. Tihanyi, T. Bisztray, R. Jain, M. A. Ferrag, L. C. Cordeiro, and V. Mavroeidis, “The formai dataset: Generative AI in software security through the lens of formal verification, ” inProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in S...

    2023

  36. [42]

    Gptscan: Detecting logic vulnerabilities in smart contracts by combining GPT with program analysis,

    Y. Sun, D. Wu, Y. Xue, H. Liu, H. Wang, Z. Xu, X. Xie, and Y. Liu, “Gptscan: Detecting logic vulnerabilities in smart contracts by combining GPT with program analysis, ” in Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2024, Lisbon, Po...

    2024

  37. [43]

    Unlocking hardware security assurance: The potential of llms,

    X. Meng, A. Srivastava, A. Arunachalam, A. Ray, P. H. Silva, R. Psiakis, Y. Makris, and K. Basu, “Unlocking hardware security assurance: The potential of llms, ” CoRR, vol. abs/2308.11042, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.11042

    2023 doi arXiv

  38. [44]

    Pre-training code representation with semantic flow graph for effective bug localization,

    Y. Du and Z. Yu, “Pre-training code representation with semantic flow graph for effective bug localization, ” inProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2023, San Francisco, CA...

    2023

  39. [45]

    Avscan2vec: Feature learning on antivirus scan data for production-scale malware corpora,

    R. J. Joyce, T. Patel, C. Nicholas, and E. Raff, “Avscan2vec: Feature learning on antivirus scan data for production-scale malware corpora, ” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security, AISec 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 November 2023 , M....

    2023

  40. [46]

    Spam-t5: Benchmarking large language models for few-shot email spam detection,

    M. Labonne and S. Moran, “Spam-t5: Benchmarking large language models for few-shot email spam detection, ”CoRR, vol. abs/2304.01238, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.01238

    2023 doi arXiv

  41. [47]

    Genkubesec: Llm-based kubernetes misconfiguration detection, localization, reasoning, and remediation,

    E. Malul, Y. Meidan, D. Mimran, Y. Elovici, and A. Shabtai, “Genkubesec: Llm-based kubernetes misconfiguration detection, localization, reasoning, and remediation, ” CoRR, vol. abs/2405.19954, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.19954

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [48]

    Fortifying cloud envi- ronments against data breaches: A novel ai-driven security framework,

    V. K. Kasula, A. R. Yadulla, B. Konda, and M. Yenugula, “Fortifying cloud envi- ronments against data breaches: A novel ai-driven security framework, ”World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews , vol. 24, no. 01, pp. 1613–1626, 2024

    2024

  43. [49]

    Bandara, S

    E. Bandara, S. Shetty, ra Babu Mukkamala, A. Rahman, P. B. Foytik, X. Liang, K. D. Zoysa, and N. W. Keong, “Devsec-gpt: generative-ai (with custom-trained meta’s llama2 llm), blockchain, nft and pbom enabled cloud native container vulnerability management and pipeline verifica...

    2024

  44. [50]

    Ollabench: Evaluating llms’ reasoning for human-centric interdependent cybersecurity

    H.-c. I. Cybersecurity, “Ollabench: Evaluating llms’ reasoning for human-centric interdependent cybersecurity. ”

  45. [51]

    Sevenllm: Benchmarking, eliciting, and enhancing abilities of large language models in cyber threat intelligence,

    H. Ji, J. Yang, L. Chai, C. Wei, L. Yang, Y. Duan, Y. Wang, T. Sun, H. Guo, T. Liet al., “Sevenllm: Benchmarking, eliciting, and enhancing abilities of large language models in cyber threat intelligence, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03446, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Fixing hardware security bugs with large language models,

    B. Ahmad, S. Thakur, B. Tan, R. Karri, and H. Pearce, “Fixing hardware security bugs with large language models, ”CoRR, vol. abs/2302.01215, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.01215

    2023 doi arXiv

  47. [54]

    Using llms to automate threat in- telligence analysis workflows in security operation centers,

    P. Tseng, Z. Yeh, X. Dai, and P. Liu, “Using llms to automate threat in- telligence analysis workflows in security operation centers, ” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13093, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Chatgpt for digital forensic investigation: The good, the bad, and the unknown,

    M. Scanlon, F. Breitinger, C. Hargreaves, J. Hilgert, and J. Sheppard, “Chatgpt for digital forensic investigation: The good, the bad, and the unknown, ”Forensic Sci. Int. Digit. Investig. , vol. 46, no. Supplement, p. 301609, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016...

    2023

  49. [56]

    The ethico-political universe of chatgpt,

    J. L. Martin, “The ethico-political universe of chatgpt, ”J. Soc. Comput., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.23919/jsc.2023.0003

    2023

  50. [58]

    Large language models in wireless application design: In-context learning-enhanced automatic network intrusion detection,

    H. Zhang, A. B. Sediq, A. Afana, and M. Erol-Kantarci, “Large language models in wireless application design: In-context learning-enhanced automatic network intrusion detection, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11002

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A study on advanced persistent threats,

    P. Chen, L. Desmet, and C. Huygens, “A study on advanced persistent threats, ” 09 2014, pp. 63–72

    2014

  52. [60]

    Automated cve analysis for threat prioritization and impact prediction,

    E. Aghaei, E. Al-Shaer, W. Shadid, and X. Niu, “Automated cve analysis for threat prioritization and impact prediction, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.03040

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    From text to mitre techniques: Exploring the malicious use of large language models for generating cyber attack payloads,

    P. V. S. Charan, H. Chunduri, P. M. Anand, and S. K. Shukla, “From text to mitre techniques: Exploring the malicious use of large language models for generating cyber attack payloads, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15336

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Llms as hackers: Autonomous linux privilege escalation attacks,

    A. Happe, A. Kaplan, and J. Cito, “Llms as hackers: Autonomous linux privilege escalation attacks, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11409

    2024

  55. [63]

    Pentestgpt: An llm-empowered automatic penetration testing tool,

    G. Deng, Y. Liu, V. Mayoral-Vilches, P. Liu, Y. Li, Y. Xu, T. Zhang, Y. Liu, M. Pinzger, and S. Rass, “Pentestgpt: An llm-empowered automatic penetration testing tool, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06782

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Xgv-bert: Leveraging contextualized language model and graph neural network for efficient software vulnerability detection,

    V. L. A. Quan, C. T. Phat, K. V. Nguyen, P. T. Duy, and V.-H. Pham, “Xgv-bert: Leveraging contextualized language model and graph neural network for efficient software vulnerability detection, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14677

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Transformer-based language models for software vulnerability detection,

    C. Thapa, S. I. Jang, M. E. Ahmed, S. Camtepe, J. Pieprzyk, and S. Nepal, “Transformer-based language models for software vulnerability detection, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.03214

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Llms cannot reliably identify and reason about security vulnerabilities (yet?): A comprehensive evaluation, framework, and benchmarks,

    S. Ullah, M. Han, S. Pujar, H. Pearce, A. Coskun, and G. Stringhini, “Llms cannot reliably identify and reason about security vulnerabilities (yet?): A comprehensive evaluation, framework, and benchmarks, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12575

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Understanding the effectiveness of large language models in detecting security vulnerabilities,

    A. Khare, S. Dutta, Z. Li, A. Solko-Breslin, R. Alur, and M. Naik, “Understanding the effectiveness of large language models in detecting security vulnerabilities, ”

  60. [68]

    Not the end of story: An evaluation of ChatGPT-driven vulnerability description mappings,

    X. Liu, Y. Tan, Z. Xiao, J. Zhuge, and R. Zhou, “Not the end of story: An evaluation of ChatGPT-driven vulnerability description mappings, ” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toronto, Canada...

    2023

  61. [69]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16169

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16169

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks through goal prioritization,

    Z. Zhang, J. Yang, P. Ke, F. Mi, H. Wang, and M. Huang, “Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks through goal prioritization, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09096

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Prompt-enhanced software vulnerability detection using chatgpt,

    C. Zhang, H. Liu, J. Zeng, K. Yang, Y. Li, and H. Li, “Prompt-enhanced software vulnerability detection using chatgpt, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12697

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Pre-trained model-based automated software vulnerability repair: How far are we?

    Q. Zhang, C. Fang, B. Yu, W. Sun, T. Zhang, and Z. Chen, “Pre-trained model-based automated software vulnerability repair: How far are we?” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12533

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Vulrepair: a t5-based automated software vulnerability repair,

    M. Fu, C. Tantithamthavorn, T. Le, V. Nguyen, and D. Phung, “Vulrepair: a t5-based automated software vulnerability repair, ” inProceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering , ser. ESEC/FSE 2...

    2022

  66. [74]

    How effective are neural networks for fixing security vulnerabilities,

    Y. Wu, N. Jiang, H. V. Pham, T. Lutellier, J. Davis, L. Tan, P. Babkin, and S. Shah, “How effective are neural networks for fixing security vulnerabilities, ” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ser. ISSTA’23. ACM, J...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Examining zero-shot vulnerability repair with large language models,

    H. Pearce, B. Tan, B. Ahmad, R. Karri, and B. Dolan-Gavitt, “Examining zero-shot vulnerability repair with large language models, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.02125

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Zeroleak: Using llms for scalable and cost effective side- channel patching,

    M. C. Tol and B. Sunar, “Zeroleak: Using llms for scalable and cost effective side- channel patching, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.13062

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Can llms patch security issues?

    K. Alrashedy, A. Aljasser, P. Tambwekar, and M. Gombolay, “Can llms patch security issues?” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00024

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Inferfix: End-to-end program repair with llms,

    M. Jin, S. Shahriar, M. Tufano, X. Shi, S. Lu, N. Sundaresan, and A. Svyatkovskiy, “Inferfix: End-to-end program repair with llms, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07263

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Dataset for : A new era in software security: Towards self-healing software via large language models and formal verification (version 1),

    Y. Charalambous, N. Tihanyi, R. Jain, Y. Sun, M. A. Ferrag, and L. C. Cordeiro, “Dataset for : A new era in software security: Towards self-healing software via large language models and formal verification (version 1), ” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8026525, Jun. 2023, acce...

    doi

  72. [80]

    A light bug triage framework for applying large pre-trained language model,

    J. Lee, K. Han, and H. Yu, “A light bug triage framework for applying large pre-trained language model, ” inProceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering , ser. ASE ’22. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023....

    2023

  73. [81]

    The hitchhiker’s guide to program analysis: A journey with large language models,

    H. Li, Y. Hao, Y. Zhai, and Z. Qian, “The hitchhiker’s guide to program analysis: A journey with large language models, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00245

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Nuances are the key: Unlocking chatgpt to find failure- inducing tests with differential prompting,

    T.-O. Li, W. Zong, Y. Wang, H. Tian, Y. Wang, S.-C. Cheung, and J. Kramer, “Nuances are the key: Unlocking chatgpt to find failure- inducing tests with differential prompting, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11686

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Large language models for test-free fault localization,

    A. Z. H. Yang, R. Martins, C. L. Goues, and V. J. Hellendoorn, “Large language models for test-free fault localization, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01726

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Do users write more insecure code with ai assistants?

    N. Perry, M. Srivastava, D. Kumar, and D. Boneh, “Do users write more insecure code with ai assistants?” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , ser. CCS’23. ACM, Nov. 2023, p. 2785–2799. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org...

    2023

  77. [85]

    Representthemall: A universal learning representation of bug reports,

    S. Fang, T. Zhang, Y. Tan, H. Jiang, X. Xia, and X. Sun, “Representthemall: A universal learning representation of bug reports, ” 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , pp. 602–614, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.or...

    2023

  78. [87]

    Copiloting the copilots: Fusing large language models with completion engines for automated program repair,

    Y. Wei, C. S. Xia, and L. Zhang, “Copiloting the copilots: Fusing large language models with completion engines for automated program repair, ” inProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering...

    2023

  79. [88]

    Fuzzing: Challenges and reflections,

    M. Boehme, C. Cadar, and A. Roychoudhury, “Fuzzing: Challenges and reflections, ” IEEE Software , vol. 38, pp. 79–86, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:221737349

    2020

  80. [89]

    Conversational automated program repair,

    ——, “Conversational automated program repair, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13246

    2023 arXiv

  81. [90]

    How effective are they? exploring large language model based fuzz driver generation,

    C. Zhang, Y. Zheng, M. Bai, Y. Li, W. Ma, X. Xie, Y. Li, L. Sun, and Y. Liu, “How effective are they? exploring large language model based fuzz driver generation, ” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ser. ISSTA’24. A...

    2024

  82. [91]

    Large language models are zero-shot fuzzers: Fuzzing deep-learning libraries via large language models,

    Y. Deng, C. S. Xia, H. Peng, C. Yang, and L. Zhang, “Large language models are zero-shot fuzzers: Fuzzing deep-learning libraries via large language models, ”

  83. [92]

    Large language model- powered smart contract vulnerability detection: New perspectives,

    S. Hu, T. Huang, F. Ilhan, S. F. Tekin, and L. Liu, “Large language model- powered smart contract vulnerability detection: New perspectives, ” in5th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications, TPS-ISA 2023, Atlanta, GA,...

    2023

  84. [93]

    Whitefox: White-box compiler fuzzing empowered by large language models,

    C. Yang, Y. Deng, R. Lu, J. Yao, J. Liu, R. Jabbarvand, and L. Zhang, “Whitefox: White-box compiler fuzzing empowered by large language models, ”Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages , vol. 8, no. OOPSLA2, p. 709–735, Oct

  85. [94]

    Large language models are edge-case fuzzers: Testing deep learning libraries via fuzzgpt,

    Y. Deng, C. S. Xia, C. Yang, S. D. Zhang, S. Yang, and L. Zhang, “Large language models are edge-case fuzzers: Testing deep learning libraries via fuzzgpt, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02014

    2023 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Slade: A portable small language model decompiler for optimized assembly,

    J. Armengol-Estapé, J. Woodruff, C. Cummins, and M. F. P. O’Boyle, “Slade: A portable small language model decompiler for optimized assembly, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12520

    2024 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Dexbert: Effective, task-agnostic and fine-grained representation learning of android bytecode,

    T. Sun, K. Allix, K. Kim, X. Zhou, D. Kim, D. Lo, T. F. Bissyandé, and J. Klein, “Dexbert: Effective, task-agnostic and fine-grained representation learning of android bytecode, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.05976

    2023 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3689736

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3689736

    doi

  89. [98]

    Symbol preference aware generative models for recovering variable names from stripped binary,

    X. Xu, Z. Zhang, Z. Su, Z. Huang, S. Feng, Y. Ye, N. Jiang, D. Xie, S. Cheng, L. Tan, and X. Zhang, “Symbol preference aware generative models for recovering variable names from stripped binary, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02546

    2024 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Gpthreats-3: Is automatic malware generation a threat?

    M. Botacin, “Gpthreats-3: Is automatic malware generation a threat?” 05 2023, pp. 238–254

    2023

  91. [100]

    A dynamic rule creation based anomaly detection method for identifying security breaches in log records,

    B. Jakub and J. Branišová, “A dynamic rule creation based anomaly detection method for identifying security breaches in log records, ”Wireless Personal Com- munications, vol. 94, 06 2017

    2017

  92. [101]

    Exploiting code symmetries for learning program semantics,

    K. Pei, W. Li, Q. Jin, S. Liu, S. Geng, L. Cavallaro, J. Yang, and S. Jana, “Exploiting code symmetries for learning program semantics, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03312

    2024 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Binmlm: Binary authorship verification with flow-aware mixture-of-shared language model,

    Q. Song, Y. Zhang, L. Ouyang, and Y. Chen, “Binmlm: Binary authorship verification with flow-aware mixture-of-shared language model, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04472

    2022 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Loggpt: Log anomaly detection via gpt,

    X. Han, S. Yuan, and M. Trabelsi, “Loggpt: Log anomaly detection via gpt, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14482

    2023 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Devising and detecting phishing: Large language models vs. smaller human models,

    F. Heiding, B. Schneier, A. Vishwanath, J. Bernstein, and P. S. Park, “Devising and detecting phishing: Large language models vs. smaller human models, ”

  96. [105]

    Face it yourselves: An llm-based two-stage strategy to localize configuration errors via logs,

    S. Shan, Y. Huo, Y. Su, Y. Li, D. Li, and Z. Zheng, “Face it yourselves: An llm-based two-stage strategy to localize configuration errors via logs, ” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis , ser. ISSTA’24. ACM, Sep. 2024...

    2024

  97. [106]

    Benchmarking large language models for log analysis, security, and interpretation,

    E. Karlsen, X. Luo, N. Zincir-Heywood, and M. Heywood, “Benchmarking large language models for log analysis, security, and interpretation, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14519

    2023 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Lmbot: Distilling graph knowledge into language model for graph-less deployment in twitter bot detection,

    Z. Cai, Z. Tan, Z. Lei, Z. Zhu, H. Wang, Q. Zheng, and M. Luo, “Lmbot: Distilling graph knowledge into language model for graph-less deployment in twitter bot detection, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17408

    2024 arXiv

  99. [108]

    On the limits of steganography,

    R. Anderson and F. Petitcolas, “On the limits of steganography, ”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 16, pp. 474–481, 12 1998

    1998

  100. [109]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12287

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12287

    arXiv

  101. [110]

    Scamming the scammers: Using chatgpt to reply mails for wasting time and resources,

    E. Cambiaso and L. Caviglione, “Scamming the scammers: Using chatgpt to reply mails for wasting time and resources, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13521

    2023 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Twits, toxic tweets, and tribal tendencies: Trends in politically polarized posts on twitter,

    H. W. A. Hanley and Z. Durumeric, “Twits, toxic tweets, and tribal tendencies: Trends in politically polarized posts on twitter, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10349

    2024 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Passgpt: Password modeling and (guided) generation with large language models,

    J. Rando, F. Perez-Cruz, and B. Hitaj, “Passgpt: Password modeling and (guided) generation with large language models, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01545

    2023 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Mapping process of digital forensic investigation framework,

    S. R. Selamat, Y. Robiah, and S. Sahib, “Mapping process of digital forensic investigation framework, ” vol. 8, 01 2008

    2008

  105. [114]

    Linguistic steganalysis in few-shot scenario,

    H. Wang, Z. Yang, J. Yang, C. Chen, and Y. Huang, “Linguistic steganalysis in few-shot scenario, ”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , vol. PP, pp. 1–1, 01 2023

    2023

  106. [115]

    Covert message passing over public internet platforms using model-based format-transforming encryption,

    L. A. Bauer, J. K. H. IV, S. A. Markelon, V. Bindschaedler, and T. Shrimpton, “Covert message passing over public internet platforms using model-based format-transforming encryption, ”CoRR, vol. abs/2110.07009, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07009

    2021 arXiv

  107. [116]

    One-time-password-authenticated key exchange,

    K. Paterson and D. Stebila, “One-time-password-authenticated key exchange, ” 07 2010

    2010

  108. [117]

    Do you still need a manual smart contract audit?

    I. David, L. Zhou, K. Qin, D. Song, L. Cavallaro, and A. Gervais, “Do you still need a manual smart contract audit?” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12338

    2023 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Sereum: Protecting existing smart contracts against re-entrancy attacks,

    M. Rodler, W. Li, G. O. Karame, and L. Davi, “Sereum: Protecting existing smart contracts against re-entrancy attacks, ” in 26th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2019, San Diego, California, USA, February 24-27, 2019 . The Internet Society, 2019. ...

    2019

  110. [119]

    Divas: An llm-based end-to-end framework for soc security analysis and policy-based protection,

    S. Paria, A. Dasgupta, and S. Bhunia, “Divas: An llm-based end-to-end framework for soc security analysis and policy-based protection, ” 2023. Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Niveen O. Jaffal, Mohammed Alkhanafseh, and David Mohaisen [Online]. Available: https://...

    2023 arXiv

  111. [120]

    How hardened is your hardware? guiding chatgpt to generate secure hardware resistant to cwes,

    M. Nair, R. Sadhukhan, and D. Mukhopadhyay, “How hardened is your hardware? guiding chatgpt to generate secure hardware resistant to cwes, ” in Cyber Security, Cryptology, and Machine Learning: 7th International Symposium, CSCML 2023, Be’er Sheva, Israel, June 29–30, 2023, Pro...

    2023 doi

  112. [121]

    On hardware security bug code fixes by prompting large language models,

    B. Ahmad, S. Thakur, B. Tan, R. Karri, and H. Pearce, “On hardware security bug code fixes by prompting large language models, ” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , vol. 19, p. 4043–4057, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2024.3374558

    2024

  113. [122]

    Data leakage detection and security using cloud computing,

    C. Vaidya, P. K. Khobragade, and A. A. Golghate, “Data leakage detection and security using cloud computing, ” 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:46916951

    2016

  114. [123]

    Complying with data handling requirements in cloud storage systems,

    M. Henze, R. Matzutt, J. Hiller, E. Mühmer, J. H. Ziegeldorf, J. van der Giet, and K. Wehrle, “Complying with data handling requirements in cloud storage systems, ”IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1661–1674, 2020

    2020

  115. [124]

    On the automatic identification of misconfiguration errors in cloud native systems,

    B. S. Mitchell, S. Mancoridis, and J. Kashyap, “On the automatic identification of misconfiguration errors in cloud native systems, ” 2024

    2024

  116. [125]

    Misconfiguration discovery with principal component analysis for cloud-native services,

    A. A. Pranata, O. Barais, J. Bourcier, and L. Noirie, “Misconfiguration discovery with principal component analysis for cloud-native services, ” in2020 IEEE/ACM 13th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 269–278

    2020

  117. [126]

    Data leakage detection in cloud computing platform,

    M. A. M. Ariffin, K. A. Rahman, M. Y. Darus, N. Awang, and Z. Kasiran, “Data leakage detection in cloud computing platform, ”International Journal of Ad- vanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering , vol. 8, no. 1.3, p. S1, 2019

    2019

  118. [127]

    Huntgpt: Integrating machine learning-based anomaly detection and explainable ai with large language models (llms),

    T. Ali and P. Kostakos, “Huntgpt: Integrating machine learning-based anomaly detection and explainable ai with large language models (llms), ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16021, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  119. [128]

    Llmcloud- hunter: Harnessing llms for automated extraction of detection rules from cloud-based cti,

    Y. Schwartz, L. Benshimol, D. Mimran, Y. Elovici, and A. Shabtai, “Llmcloud- hunter: Harnessing llms for automated extraction of detection rules from cloud-based cti, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05194

    2024 arXiv

  120. [129]

    Reflection of federal data protection standards on cloud governance,

    O. Dye, J. Heo, and E. C. Cankaya, “Reflection of federal data protection standards on cloud governance, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07907, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  121. [130]

    Automated threat detection and response using llm agents,

    R. Molleti, V. Goje, P. Luthra, and P. Raghavan, “Automated threat detection and response using llm agents, ”World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews , vol. 24, pp. 079–090, 11 2024

    2024

  122. [131]

    Actionable cyber threat intelligence using knowledge graphs and large language models,

    R. Fieblinger, M. T. Alam, and N. Rastogi, “Actionable cyber threat intelligence using knowledge graphs and large language models, ” in 2024 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 100–111

    2024

  123. [132]

    Assessing llms in malicious code deobfuscation of real-world malware campaigns,

    C. Patsakis, F. Casino, and N. Lykousas, “Assessing llms in malicious code deobfuscation of real-world malware campaigns, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19715

    2024 arXiv

  124. [133]

    Uvscan: Detecting third-party component usage violations in iot firmware,

    B. Zhao, S. Ji, X. Zhang, Y. Tian, Q. Wang, Y. Pu, C. Lyu, and R. Beyah, “Uvscan: Detecting third-party component usage violations in iot firmware, ” 06 2023

    2023

  125. [134]

    Localintel: Generating organizational threat intelligence from global and local cyber knowledge,

    S. Mitra, S. Neupane, T. Chakraborty, S. Mittal, A. Piplai, M. Gaur, and S. Rahimi, “Localintel: Generating organizational threat intelligence from global and local cyber knowledge, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10036

    2024 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Disassembling obfuscated executables with llm,

    H. Rong, Y. Duan, H. Zhang, X. Wang, H. Chen, S. Duan, and S. Wang, “Disassembling obfuscated executables with llm, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08924

    2024 arXiv

  127. [136]

    Malsight: Exploring malicious source code and benign pseudocode for iterative binary malware summarization,

    H. Lu, H. Peng, G. Nan, J. Cui, C. Wang, W. Jin, S. Wang, S. Pan, and X. Tao, “Malsight: Exploring malicious source code and benign pseudocode for iterative binary malware summarization, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18379

    2024 arXiv

  128. [137]

    Un- derstanding and securing device vulnerabilities through automated bug report analysis,

    X. Feng, X. Liao, X. Wang, H. Wang, Q. Li, K. Yang, H. Zhu, and L. Sun, “Un- derstanding and securing device vulnerabilities through automated bug report analysis, ” inSEC’19: Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, 2019

    2019

  129. [138]

    An adaptive end-to-end iot security framework using explainable ai and llms,

    S. Baral, S. Saha, and A. Haque, “An adaptive end-to-end iot security framework using explainable ai and llms, ” in 2024 IEEE 10th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). IEEE, 2024, pp. 469–474

    2024

  130. [139]

    On-device learning based vulnerability detection in iot environment

    S. Li, G. Min et al., “On-device learning based vulnerability detection in iot environment. ”

  131. [140]

    IDS-agent: An LLM agent for explainable intrusion detection in iot networks,

    Y. Li, Z. Xiang, N. D. Bastian, D. Song, and B. Li, “IDS-agent: An LLM agent for explainable intrusion detection in iot networks, ” in NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Open-World Agents , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=iiK0pRyLkw

    2024

  132. [141]

    Large language models for forecasting and anomaly detection: A systematic literature review,

    J. Su, C. Jiang, X. Jin, Y. Qiao, T. Xiao, H. Ma, R. Wei, Z. Jing, J. Xu, and J. Lin, “Large language models for forecasting and anomaly detection: A systematic literature review, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10350

    2024 arXiv

  133. [142]

    Automl in the age of large language models: Current challenges, future opportunities and risks,

    A. Tornede, D. Deng, T. Eimer, J. Giovanelli, A. Mohan, T. Ruhkopf, S. Segel, D. Theodorakopoulos, T. Tornede, H. Wachsmuth, and M. Lindauer, “Automl in the age of large language models: Current challenges, future opportunities and risks, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://a...

    2024 arXiv

  134. [143]

    Information systems security (infosec),

    Computer Security Resource Center, “Information systems security (infosec), ” https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/information_systems_security, 2023, ac- cessed on January 28, 2024

    2023

  135. [144]

    How do you protect machine learning from attacks?

    P. N. Pathak, “How do you protect machine learning from attacks?” 2023, avail- able online: https://shorturl.at/AEQmP [Accessed on January 28, 2024]

    2023

  136. [145]

    Harnessing the power of llm to support binary taint analysis,

    P. Liu, C. Sun, Y. Zheng, X. Feng, C. Qin, Y. Wang, Z. Xu, Z. Li, P. Di, Y. Jiang, and L. Sun, “Harnessing the power of llm to support binary taint analysis, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08275

    2024 arXiv

  137. [146]

    Challenges and applications of large language models,

    J. Kaddour, J. Harris, M. Mozes, H. Bradley, R. Raileanu, and R. McHardy, “Challenges and applications of large language models, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10169

    2023 arXiv

  138. [147]

    Ignore previous prompt: Attack techniques for language models,

    F. Perez and I. Ribeiro, “Ignore previous prompt: Attack techniques for language models, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09527

    2022 arXiv

  139. [148]

    Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned,

    D. Ganguli, L. Lovitt, J. Kernion, A. Askell, Y. Bai, S. Kadavath, B. Mann, E. Perez, N. Schiefer, K. Ndousse, A. Jones, S. Bowman, A. Chen, T. Conerly, N. DasSarma, D. Drain, N. Elhage, S. El-Showk, S. Fort, Z. Hatfield-Dodds, T. Henighan, D. Hernandez, T. Hume, J. Jacobson, ...

    2022 arXiv

  140. [149]

    What is data privacy?

    CLOUDFLARE, “What is data privacy?” https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ privacy/what-is-data-privacy/, 2023, accessed on January 28, 2024

    2023

  141. [151]

    Ml4co-kida: Knowledge inheritance in dataset aggregation,

    Z. Cao, Y. Xu, Z. Huang, and S. Zhou, “Ml4co-kida: Knowledge inheritance in dataset aggregation, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10328

    2022 arXiv

  142. [152]

    Hatecheck: Functional tests for hate speech detection models,

    P. Röttger, B. Vidgen, D. Nguyen, Z. Waseem, H. Margetts, and J. Pierrehumbert, “Hatecheck: Functional tests for hate speech detection models, ” inProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conferenc...

    2021 doi

  143. [153]

    Safety-tuned llamas: Lessons from improving the safety of large language models that follow instructions,

    F. Bianchi, M. Suzgun, G. Attanasio, P. Röttger, D. Jurafsky, T. Hashimoto, and J. Zou, “Safety-tuned llamas: Lessons from improving the safety of large language models that follow instructions, ” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, V...

    2024

  144. [154]

    Learning and forgetting unsafe examples in large language models,

    J. Zhao, Z. Deng, D. Madras, J. Zou, and M. Ren, “Learning and forgetting unsafe examples in large language models, ” inForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024. OpenReview.net,

    2024

  145. [155]

    Detecting language model attacks with perplexity,

    G. Alon and M. Kamfonas, “Detecting language model attacks with perplexity, ”

  146. [156]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.14132

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.14132

    arXiv

  147. [157]

    Baseline defenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models,

    N. Jain, A. Schwarzschild, Y. Wen, G. Somepalli, J. Kirchenbauer, P. yeh Chiang, M. Goldblum, A. Saha, J. Geiping, and T. Goldstein, “Baseline defenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00614

    2023 arXiv

  148. [158]

    Combating misinformation in the era of generative ai models,

    D. Xu, S. Fan, and M. Kankanhalli, “Combating misinformation in the era of generative ai models, ” inProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2023, pp. 9291–9298

    2023

  149. [159]

    Safety alignment should be made more than just a few tokens deep,

    X. Qi, A. Panda, K. Lyu, X. Ma, S. Roy, A. Beirami, P. Mittal, and P. Henderson, “Safety alignment should be made more than just a few tokens deep, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05946

    2024 arXiv

  150. [160]

    Weight poisoning attacks on pre-trained models,

    K. Kurita, P. Michel, and G. Neubig, “Weight poisoning attacks on pre-trained models, ” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.06660

    2020 arXiv

  151. [161]

    [Online]

    OpenReview.net, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/ forum?id=gT5hALch9z

    2024

  152. [162]

    Parafuzz: An interpretability-driven technique for detecting poisoned samples in nlp,

    L. Yan, Z. Zhang, G. Tao, K. Zhang, X. Chen, G. Shen, and X. Zhang, “Parafuzz: An interpretability-driven technique for detecting poisoned samples in nlp, ”

  153. [163]

    Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=RYmmgedVjR

    [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=RYmmgedVjR

  154. [164]

    Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time,

    M. Wortsman, G. Ilharco, S. Y. Gadre, R. Roelofs, R. Gontijo-Lopes, A. S. Morcos, H. Namkoong, A. Farhadi, Y. Carmon, S. Kornblith, and L. Schmidt, “Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time, ” 2022. [Onlin...

    2022 arXiv

  155. [165]

    Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models,

    A. Zou, Z. Wang, N. Carlini, M. Nasr, J. Z. Kolter, and M. Fredrikson, “Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15043

    2023 arXiv

  156. [166]

    Split, unlearn, merge: Leveraging data attributes for more effective unlearning in llms,

    S. R. Kadhe, F. Ahmed, D. Wei, N. Baracaldo, and I. Padhi, “Split, unlearn, merge: Leveraging data attributes for more effective unlearning in llms, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11780 Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilit...

    2024 arXiv

  157. [167]

    Agentpoison: Red-teaming llm agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases,

    Z. Chen, Z. Xiang, C. Xiao, D. Song, and B. Li, “Agentpoison: Red-teaming llm agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12784

    2024 arXiv

  158. [168]

    Just how toxic is data poisoning? a unified benchmark for backdoor and data poisoning attacks,

    A. Schwarzschild, M. Goldblum, A. Gupta, J. P. Dickerson, and T. Goldstein, “Just how toxic is data poisoning? a unified benchmark for backdoor and data poisoning attacks, ” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12557

    2021 arXiv

  159. [169]

    Breaking down the defenses: A comparative survey of attacks on large language models,

    A. G. Chowdhury, M. M. Islam, V. Kumar, F. H. Shezan, V. Jain, and A. Chadha, “Breaking down the defenses: A comparative survey of attacks on large language models, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04786, 2024

    2024

  160. [170]

    Machine learning algorithms for cybersecurity: Detecting and pre- venting threats,

    V. Shah, “Machine learning algorithms for cybersecurity: Detecting and pre- venting threats, ” 12 2022

    2022

  161. [171]

    A unified evaluation of textual backdoor learning: Frameworks and benchmarks,

    G. Cui, L. Yuan, B. He, Y. Chen, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “A unified evaluation of textual backdoor learning: Frameworks and benchmarks, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08514

    2022 arXiv

  162. [172]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02122

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02122

    arXiv

  163. [173]

    Obfuscation-resilient privacy leak detection for mobile apps through differential analysis,

    A. Continella, Y. Fratantonio, M. Lindorfer, A. Puccetti, A. Zand, C. Krügel, and G. Vigna, “Obfuscation-resilient privacy leak detection for mobile apps through differential analysis, ” inNetwork and Distributed System Security Symposium ,

  164. [174]

    Jailbreaking large language models: navigating the crossroads of innovation, ethics, and health risks,

    G. Mondillo, S. Colosimo, A. Perrotta, V. Frattolillo, C. Indolfi, M. M. del Giudice, and F. Rossi, “Jailbreaking large language models: navigating the crossroads of innovation, ethics, and health risks, ”Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence , vol. 8, 2025

    2025

  165. [175]

    On the exploitability of instruction tuning,

    M. Shu, J. Wang, C. Zhu, J. Geiping, C. Xiao, and T. Goldstein, “On the exploitability of instruction tuning, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2306.17194

    2023 arXiv

  166. [176]

    Trojanpuzzle: Covertly poisoning code- suggestion models,

    H. Aghakhani, W. Dai, A. Manoel, X. Fernandes, A. Kharkar, C. Kruegel, G. Vigna, D. Evans, B. Zorn, and R. Sim, “Trojanpuzzle: Covertly poisoning code- suggestion models, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.02344

    2024 arXiv

  167. [177]

    Fine-pruning: Defending against backdooring attacks on deep neural networks,

    K. Liu, B. Dolan-Gavitt, and S. Garg, “Fine-pruning: Defending against backdooring attacks on deep neural networks, ” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12185

    2018 arXiv

  168. [178]

    Smoothllm: Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks,

    A. Robey, E. Wong, H. Hassani, and G. J. Pappas, “Smoothllm: Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03684

    2024 arXiv

  169. [179]

    Neutralizing backdoors through information conflicts for large language models,

    C. Chen, Y. Sun, X. Gong, J. Gao, and K.-Y. Lam, “Neutralizing backdoors through information conflicts for large language models, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18280, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  170. [180]

    Sok: Prompt hacking of large language models,

    B. Rababah, M. Kwiatkowski, C. Leung, C. G. Akcoraet al., “Sok: Prompt hacking of large language models, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13901, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  171. [181]

    Fine-mixing: Mitigating backdoors in fine-tuned language models,

    Z. Zhang, L. Lyu, X. Ma, C. Wang, and X. Sun, “Fine-mixing: Mitigating backdoors in fine-tuned language models, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2210.09545

    2022 arXiv

  172. [182]

    Instruction defense,

    S. Schulhoff, “Instruction defense, ” https://learnprompting.org/docs/prompt_ hacking/defensive_measures/instruction, 2024, accessed: October 11, 2024

    2024

  173. [183]

    Defending pre-trained language models as few-shot learners against backdoor attacks,

    Z. Xi, T. Du, C. Li, R. Pang, S. Ji, J. Chen, F. Ma, and T. Wang, “Defending pre-trained language models as few-shot learners against backdoor attacks, ”

  174. [184]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13256

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13256

    arXiv

  175. [185]

    The iphone jailbreaking exemption and the issue of openness,

    M. H. Wolk, “The iphone jailbreaking exemption and the issue of openness, ” Cornell JL & Pub. Pol’y , vol. 19, p. 795, 2009

    2009

  176. [186]

    Trustworthy llms: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment,

    Y. Liu, Y. Yao, J.-F. Ton, X. Zhang, R. Guo, H. Cheng, Y. Klochkov, M. F. Taufiq, and H. Li, “Trustworthy llms: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05374

    2024 arXiv

  177. [187]

    Certifying llm safety against adversarial prompting,

    A. Kumar, C. Agarwal, S. Srinivas, A. J. Li, S. Feizi, and H. Lakkaraju, “Certifying llm safety against adversarial prompting, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.02705

    2024 arXiv

  178. [188]

    Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self-reminder,

    F. Wu, Y. Xie, J. Yi, J. Shao, J. Curl, L. Lyu, Q. Chen, and X. Xie, “Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self-reminder, ” 2023

    2023

  179. [189]

    Jailbreakzoo: Survey, landscapes, and horizons in jailbreaking large language and vision- language models,

    H. Jin, L. Hu, X. Li, P. Zhang, C. Chen, J. Zhuang, and H. Wang, “Jailbreakzoo: Survey, landscapes, and horizons in jailbreaking large language and vision- language models, ” CoRR, vol. abs/2407.01599, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.01599

    2024 doi

  180. [190]

    A comprehensive overview of backdoor attacks in large language models within communication networks,

    H. Yang, K. Xiang, M. Ge, H. Li, R. Lu, and S. Yu, “A comprehensive overview of backdoor attacks in large language models within communication networks, ” IEEE Network, 2024

    2024

  181. [191]

    Machine generated text: A comprehensive survey of threat models and detection methods,

    E. Crothers, N. Japkowicz, and H. Viktor, “Machine generated text: A comprehensive survey of threat models and detection methods, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.07321

    2023 arXiv

  182. [192]

    Badprompt: Backdoor attacks on continuous prompts,

    X. Cai, H. Xu, S. Xu, Y. Zhanget al., “Badprompt: Backdoor attacks on continuous prompts, ”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 37 068– 37 080, 2022

    2022

  183. [193]

    Your guide to generative ai,

    Learn Prompting, “Your guide to generative ai, ” https://learnprompting.org, 2023, accessed: January 28, 2024

    2023

  184. [194]

    Poisoning language models during instruction tuning,

    A. Wan, E. Wallace, S. Shen, and D. Klein, “Poisoning language models during instruction tuning, ” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 35 413–35 425

    2023

  185. [195]

    Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation,

    H. Gonen, S. Iyer, T. Blevins, N. A. Smith, and L. Zettlemoyer, “Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04037

    2024 arXiv

  186. [196]

    Formalizing and benchmarking prompt injection attacks and defenses,

    Y. Liu, Y. Jia, R. Geng, J. Jia, and N. Z. Gong, “Formalizing and benchmarking prompt injection attacks and defenses, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12815

    2024

  187. [197]

    Optimization-based prompt injection attack to llm-as-a-judge,

    J. Shi, Z. Yuan, Y. Liu, Y. Huang, P. Zhou, L. Sun, and N. Z. Gong, “Optimization-based prompt injection attack to llm-as-a-judge, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17710

    2024 arXiv

  188. [198]

    Chatgpt’s se- curity risks and benefits: offensive and defensive use-cases, mitigation measures, and future implications,

    M. Charfeddine, H. M. Kammoun, B. Hamdaoui, and M. Guizani, “Chatgpt’s se- curity risks and benefits: offensive and defensive use-cases, mitigation measures, and future implications, ”IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  189. [199]

    A review on large language models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges,

    M. A. K. Raiaan, M. S. H. Mukta, K. Fatema, N. M. Fahad, S. Sakib, M. M. J. Mim, J. Ahmad, M. E. Ali, and S. Azam, “A review on large language models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges, ”IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  190. [200]

    Granite code models: A family of open foundation models for code intelligence,

    M. Mishra, M. Stallone, G. Zhang, Y. Shen, A. Prasad, A. M. Soria, M. Merler, P. Selvam, S. Surendran, S. Singh et al., “Granite code models: A family of open foundation models for code intelligence, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04324, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  191. [201]

    Explainability for large language models: A survey,

    H. Zhao, H. Chen, F. Yang, N. Liu, H. Deng, H. Cai, S. Wang, D. Yin, and M. Du, “Explainability for large language models: A survey, ”ACM Transactions on Intel- ligent Systems and Technology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–38, 2024

    2024

  192. [203]

    A survey on secure and private federated learning using blockchain: Theory and application in resource- constrained computing,

    E. Moore, A. Imteaj, S. Rezapour, and M. H. Amini, “A survey on secure and private federated learning using blockchain: Theory and application in resource- constrained computing, ”IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2023

    2023

  193. [205]

    Data cleansing,

    F. Huang, “Data cleansing, ” inEncyclopedia of big data . Springer, 2022, pp. 275–279

    2022

  194. [207]

    Neural cleanse: Identifying and mitigating backdoor attacks in neural networks,

    B. Wang, Y. Yao, S. Shan, H. Li, B. Viswanath, H. Zheng, and B. Y. Zhao, “Neural cleanse: Identifying and mitigating backdoor attacks in neural networks, ” in 2019 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 707–723

    2019

  195. [208]

    Security and privacy challenges of large language models: A survey,

    B. C. Das, M. H. Amini, and Y. Wu, “Security and privacy challenges of large language models: A survey, ”ACM Computing Surveys, 2024

    2024

  196. [209]

    Poisonprompt: Backdoor attack on prompt-based large language models,

    H. Yao, J. Lou, and Z. Qin, “Poisonprompt: Backdoor attack on prompt-based large language models, ” inICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 7745–7749

    2024

  197. [2017]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1775474

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1775474

  198. [2022]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.07858

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.07858

    doi arXiv

  199. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.14834

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.14834

    arXiv

  200. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11338

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11338

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.