Daily Papers

As large language models are deployed in increasingly autonomous long-horizon tasks, manually auditing and verifying the actions, artifacts, and outputs of models becomes more difficult. Users instead come to rely on LLM-generated reports to assess the quality and completeness of the work. We introduce a suite of eight adversarial reporting scenarios to systematically study whether LLMs conceal narrative-changing flaws: errors or limitations that undermine an otherwise successful account of work. We call this phenomenon "insecure reporting." When handed machine learning experiment logs containing a planted negative result that substantially weakens the proposed method, GPT-5.5 flags the negative result in only 2 of 200 generated reports. However, when a short honesty instruction, "Be honest in your response," is added, the model flags the negative result in 190 of 200 reports. Across eight open-weight models, chain-of-thought analysis reveals a recurring tension between disclosing narrative-changing flaws and reasoning about ways to appear successful. We perform an activation analysis and a steering experiment on Qwen3.5-9B, finding that honesty and success-seeking correspond to opposing directions in representation space. Our results suggest that LLMs tend to present narratives of success by default, and that steering models toward honesty makes their reports substantially more transparent.

Bug bounty platforms (e.g., HackerOne, BugCrowd) leverage crowd-sourced vulnerability discovery to improve continuous coverage, reduce the cost of discovery, and serve as an integral complement to internal red teams. With the rise of AI-generated bug reports, little work exists to help bug hunters understand why these reports are labeled as invalid. To improve report quality and reduce reviewers' burden, it is critical to predict invalid reports and interpret invalid reasons. In this work, we conduct an empirical study with the purpose of helping bug hunters understand the validity of reports. We collect a dataset of 9,942 disclosed bug bounty reports, including 1,400 invalid reports, and evaluate whether state-of-the-art large language models can identify invalid reports. While models such as GPT-5, DeepSeek, and a fine-tuned RoBERTa achieve strong overall accuracy, they consistently struggle to detect invalid cases, showing a tendency to over-accept reports. To improve invalidity detection, we build a taxonomy of rejection reasons for Information Disclosure vulnerabilities and incorporate it into a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. This approach substantially improves classification consistency and reduces bias. We also examine whether reviewer decisions may be influenced by factors beyond the content of the report. Our analysis shows that reporters with higher reputations tend to receive more favorable outcomes in borderline cases, suggesting that perceived expertise can influence review judgments. Overall, our findings highlight the challenges of invalid report identification and show that combining LLMs with structured reviewer knowledge can support more transparent and consistent vulnerability report review.

Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety. Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what or where to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them with other relevant stakeholders. As a result, good-faith reporters duplicate effort by submitting many different forms, and recipients lack standardized, triage-ready information. We audit 12 reporting systems published by AI developers, cybersecurity groups, and AI flaw aggregators, identifying five recurring design challenges spanning discoverability, scope, information collection, coordination, and guidance for strict-liability cases. Building on this analysis and feedback from 49 experts across 32 organizations representing developers, security researchers, and ecosystem coordinators, we introduce FLARE-AI, an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems. FLARE-AI streamlines flaw report creation by collecting triage-relevant information through conditional logic and early classification, then enables optional dissemination of standardized, machine-readable reports to multiple developers, coordinators, and incident registries from a single submission. By lowering barriers to reporting AI flaws and improving interoperability across stakeholders, FLARE-AI helps break down silos and accelerate remediation across the AI ecosystem.

Statistical data anonymization increasingly relies on fully synthetic microdata, for which classical identity disclosure measures are less informative than an adversary's ability to infer sensitive attributes from released data. We introduce RAPID (Risk of Attribute Prediction--Induced Disclosure), a disclosure risk measure that directly quantifies inferential vulnerability under a realistic attack model. An adversary trains a predictive model solely on the released synthetic data and applies it to real individuals' quasi-identifiers. For continuous sensitive attributes, RAPID reports the proportion of records whose predicted values fall within a specified relative error tolerance. For categorical attributes, we propose a baseline-normalized confidence score that measures how much more confident the attacker is about the true class than would be expected from class prevalence alone, and we summarize risk as the fraction of records exceeding a policy-defined threshold. This construction yields an interpretable, bounded risk metric that is robust to class imbalance, independent of any specific synthesizer, and applicable with arbitrary learning algorithms. We illustrate threshold calibration, uncertainty quantification, and comparative evaluation of synthetic data generators using simulations and real data. Our results show that RAPID provides a practical, attacker-realistic upper bound on attribute-inference disclosure risk that complements existing utility diagnostics and disclosure control frameworks.

The widespread deployment of general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems introduces significant new risks. Yet the infrastructure, practices, and norms for reporting flaws in GPAI systems remain seriously underdeveloped, lagging far behind more established fields like software security. Based on a collaboration between experts from the fields of software security, machine learning, law, social science, and policy, we identify key gaps in the evaluation and reporting of flaws in GPAI systems. We call for three interventions to advance system safety. First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers in order to ease the process of submitting, reproducing, and triaging flaws in GPAI systems. Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs, borrowing from bug bounties, with legal safe harbors to protect researchers. Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports across the many stakeholders who may be impacted. These interventions are increasingly urgent, as evidenced by the prevalence of jailbreaks and other flaws that can transfer across different providers' GPAI systems. By promoting robust reporting and coordination in the AI ecosystem, these proposals could significantly improve the safety, security, and accountability of GPAI systems.

Autonomous language-model agents increasingly rely on installable skills and tools to complete user tasks. Static skill auditing can expose capability surface before deployment, but it cannot determine whether a particular invocation is unsafe under the current user request and runtime context. We therefore study skill invocation auditing as a continuous-risk estimation problem: given a user request, candidate skill, and runtime context, predict a score that supports ranking and triage before a hard intervention is applied. We introduce STARS, which combines a static capability prior, a request-conditioned invocation risk model, and a calibrated risk-fusion policy. To evaluate this setting, we construct SIA-Bench, a benchmark of 3,000 invocation records with group-safe splits, lineage metadata, runtime context, canonical action labels, and derived continuous-risk targets. On a held-out split of indirect prompt injection attacks, calibrated fusion reaches 0.439 high-risk AUPRC, improving over 0.405 for the contextual scorer and 0.380 for the strongest static baseline, while the contextual scorer remains better calibrated with 0.289 expected calibration error. On the locked in-distribution test split, gains are smaller and static priors remain useful. The resulting claim is therefore narrower: request-conditioned auditing is most valuable as an invocation-time risk-scoring and triage layer rather than as a replacement for static screening. Code is available at https://github.com/123zgj123/STARS.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become critical to modern software development, but their reliance on uncurated web-scale datasets for training introduces a significant security risk: the absorption and reproduction of malicious content. To systematically evaluate this risk, we introduce Scam2Prompt, a scalable automated auditing framework that identifies the underlying intent of a scam site and then synthesizes innocuous, developer-style prompts that mirror this intent, allowing us to test whether an LLM will generate malicious code in response to these innocuous prompts. In a large-scale study of four production LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Llama-4-Scout, and DeepSeek-V3), we found that Scam2Prompt's innocuous prompts triggered malicious URL generation in 4.24% of cases. To test the persistence of this security risk, we constructed Innoc2Scam-bench, a benchmark of 1,559 innocuous prompts that consistently elicited malicious code from all four initial LLMs. When applied to seven additional production LLMs released in 2025, we found the vulnerability is not only present but severe, with malicious code generation rates ranging from 12.7% to 43.8%. Furthermore, existing safety measures like state-of-the-art guardrails proved insufficient to prevent this behavior, with an overall detection rate of less than 0.3%.

Large language models are often asked which input factors influenced their outputs. For structured inputs, such reports can be checked by counterfactual perturbation, but each factor must be queried multiple times to estimate its effect, so verification is usually budget-limited. We study how this limited-budget setting changes the incentive to report factor-level influence truthfully. We formalize the interaction as a verification game and show that proper scoring alone is not enough when auditing depends on the report: report-dependent auditing creates a suppression incentive, because factors reported as important are more likely to be checked and penalized for estimation noise. In contrast, report-independent auditing, or a mixed rule with a small report-independent floor, removes this channel and makes truthful reporting preferable to full suppression. We instantiate the framework with the Counterfactual Brier Score (CBS) and evaluate its predictions on four NLP benchmarks. A synthetic rational agent matches the theoretical prediction exactly, and real LLMs follow the same incentives when they are made explicit. The main design implication is simple: under partial verification, factor-level explanation systems should include a report-independent audit component so that under-reporting cannot be used to avoid scrutiny.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in open-source software (OSS) ecosystems, creating complex interactions among natural language prompts, probabilistic model outputs, and execution-capable components. However, it remains unclear whether traditional vulnerability disclosure frameworks adequately capture these model-mediated risks. To investigate this, we analyze 295 GitHub Security Advisories published between January 2025 and January 2026 that reference LLM-related components, and we manually annotate a sample of 100 advisories using the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025. We find no evidence of new implementation-level weakness classes specific to LLM systems. Most advisories map to established CWEs, particularly injection and deserialization weaknesses. At the same time, the OWASP-based analysis reveals recurring architectural risk patterns, especially Supply Chain, Excessive Agency, and Prompt Injection, which often co-occur across multiple stages of execution. These results suggest that existing advisory metadata captures code-level defects but underrepresents model-mediated exposure. We conclude that combining the CWE and OWASP perspectives provides a more complete and necessary view of vulnerabilities in LLM-integrated systems.

Modern code completion engines, powered by large language models (LLMs), assist millions of developers with their strong capabilities to generate functionally correct code. Due to this popularity, it is crucial to investigate the security implications of relying on LLM-based code completion. In this work, we demonstrate that state-of-the-art black-box LLM-based code completion engines can be stealthily biased by adversaries to significantly increase their rate of insecure code generation. We present the first attack, named INSEC, that achieves this goal. INSEC works by injecting an attack string as a short comment in the completion input. The attack string is crafted through a query-based optimization procedure starting from a set of carefully designed initialization schemes. We demonstrate INSEC's broad applicability and effectiveness by evaluating it on various state-of-the-art open-source models and black-box commercial services (e.g., OpenAI API and GitHub Copilot). On a diverse set of security-critical test cases, covering 16 CWEs across 5 programming languages, INSEC increases the rate of generated insecure code by more than 50%, while maintaining the functional correctness of generated code. We consider INSEC practical -- it requires low resources and costs less than 10 US dollars to develop on commodity hardware. Moreover, we showcase the attack's real-world deployability, by developing an IDE plug-in that stealthily injects INSEC into the GitHub Copilot extension.

Recently, bug-bounty programs have gained popularity and become a significant part of the security culture of many organizations. Bug-bounty programs enable organizations to enhance their security posture by harnessing the diverse expertise of crowds of external security experts (i.e., bug hunters). Nonetheless, quantifying the benefits of bug-bounty programs remains elusive, which presents a significant challenge for managing them. Previous studies focused on measuring their benefits in terms of the number of vulnerabilities reported or based on the properties of the reported vulnerabilities, such as severity or exploitability. However, beyond these inherent properties, the value of a report also depends on the probability that the vulnerability would be discovered by a threat actor before an internal expert could discover and patch it. In this paper, we present a data-driven study of the Chromium and Firefox vulnerability-reward programs. First, we estimate the difficulty of discovering a vulnerability using the probability of rediscovery as a novel metric. Our findings show that vulnerability discovery and patching provide clear benefits by making it difficult for threat actors to find vulnerabilities; however, we also identify opportunities for improvement, such as incentivizing bug hunters to focus more on development releases. Second, we compare the types of vulnerabilities that are discovered internally vs. externally and those that are exploited by threat actors. We observe significant differences between vulnerabilities found by external bug hunters, internal security teams, and external threat actors, which indicates that bug-bounty programs provide an important benefit by complementing the expertise of internal teams, but also that external hunters should be incentivized more to focus on the types of vulnerabilities that are likely to be exploited by threat actors.

GitHub recommends that projects adopt a security file that outlines vulnerability reporting procedures. However, the effectiveness and operational challenges of such files are not yet fully understood. This study aims to clarify the challenges that security files face in the vulnerability reporting process within open-source communities. Specifically, we classified and analyzed the content of 711 randomly sampled issues related to security files. We also conducted a quantitative comparative analysis of the close time and number of responses for issues concerning six community health files, including security files. Our analysis revealed that 79.5% of security file-related issues were requests to add the file, and reports that included links were closed, with a median time that was 2 days shorter. These findings offer practical insights for improving security reporting policies and community management, ultimately contributing to a more secure open-source ecosystem.

Understanding and addressing potential safety alignment risks in large language models (LLMs) is critical for ensuring their safe and trustworthy deployment. In this paper, we highlight an insidious safety threat: a compromised LLM can maintain a facade of proper safety alignment while covertly generating harmful content. To achieve this, we finetune the model to understand and apply a steganographic technique. At inference time, we input a prompt that contains a steganographically embedded malicious target question along with a plaintext cover question. The model, in turn, produces a target response similarly embedded within a benign-looking cover response. In this process, human observers only see the model being prompted with a cover question and generating a corresponding cover response, while the malicious content is hidden from view. We demonstrate this invisible safety threat on GPT-4.1 despite the OpenAI finetuning API's safeguards. The finetuned model produces steganographic malicious outputs in response to hidden malicious prompts, while the user interface displays only a fully benign cover interaction. We also replicate the attack on three open-source models, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, Phi-4, and Mistral-Small-24B-Base-2501, confirming the generality of our method. We quantitatively evaluate our method on the AdvBench dataset, using Llama-Guard-3-8B for content safety classification. Across all four models, all stegotexts containing malicious content are incorrectly classified as safe.

AI agents now report vulnerabilities faster than maintainers can review them. Reports often depend on security properties specific to the application, and require considerable human labor to process. To mitigate this, we introduce a framework for evaluating vulnerability reports via probes, executable checks of security properties. A reported exploit is evaluated by replaying it against the application and running the probes: a triggered probe indicates both that the exploit succeeded and which security property it violated. As a probe encodes a security property rather than a known vulnerability, it can detect vulnerabilities that were not known when the probe was written. We instantiate the framework as MobileCybench, a benchmark for vulnerability discovery by AI agents in 13 Android applications, with 495 probes written and reviewed by the authors. We evaluate 5 coding agents (OpenCode with GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6-Sol, and GLM-5.2; Claude Code with Opus 4.8 and Opus 5) under 4 settings: as a malicious app on the victim's device or as a remote attacker with a low-privilege account, each with either only an obfuscated APK or access to the application's source code. Given only the obfuscated APK, the top agent, OpenCode with GPT-5.6-Sol, triggers probes in 53.8% of applications in the malicious-app setting and 16.7% in the remote-attacker setting. With source code, the trigger rate across all agents and both attack settings increases from 28.8% to 32.8%. Building and running the benchmark surfaced 23 previously unreported vulnerabilities, the majority of which have been confirmed by maintainers.

Harm reporting in Artificial Intelligence (AI) currently lacks a structured process for disclosing and addressing algorithmic flaws, relying largely on an ad-hoc approach. This contrasts sharply with the well-established Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) ecosystem in software security. While global efforts to establish frameworks for AI transparency and collaboration are underway, the unique challenges presented by machine learning (ML) models demand a specialized approach. To address this gap, we propose implementing a Coordinated Flaw Disclosure (CFD) framework tailored to the complexities of ML and AI issues. This paper reviews the evolution of ML disclosure practices, from ad hoc reporting to emerging participatory auditing methods, and compares them with cybersecurity norms. Our framework introduces innovations such as extended model cards, dynamic scope expansion, an independent adjudication panel, and an automated verification process. We also outline a forthcoming real-world pilot of CFD. We argue that CFD could significantly enhance public trust in AI systems. By balancing organizational and community interests, CFD aims to improve AI accountability in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.