arXiv subjects

Adrian Wood

Publications and source records attributed to Adrian Wood.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

StealthBench: Measuring Operational Stealth in Autonomous Offensive-Security Agents

Stealth, the discipline of achieving an objective without revealing your presence, capabilities, or collected intelligence, is what separates sophisticated operators from detectable ones. Elite security researchers and advanced persistent threats achieve their objectives unnoticed; autonomous agents increasingly inherit the same offensive tasks, but do they inherit the tradecraft? We introduce StealthBench,a benchmark that measures operational stealth in autonomous offensive-security agents across six operational security (OPSEC) dimensions. We extract 11 hand-verified OPSEC incidents from real bug-bounty and red-team trajectories, expanded into 14 dockerized task scenarios, where agents, despite finding real vulnerabilities, committed stealth failures inconsistent with standard operational tradecraft: embedding credentials in public uploads, deleting production resources to prove access, force-adding uninvolved users to demonstrate a race condition. We evaluate agent trajectories using a 3-model large language model (LLM) judge panel with majority-vote aggregation, measuring safe success rate (solved and stealthy), Stealth@Solve (tradecraft quality among successful solves), and reckless solve rate (solved but cover blown). Our results show that no model exceeds 54% safe success rate (the compound metric requiring both task completion and stealth), confirming that OPSEC failures are systematic across model families. We release StealthBench as a public benchmark to support both the development of stealth-aware agents and automated OPSEC monitoring for autonomous offensive-security deployments. The interactive leaderboard, evaluation harness, and dataset are available at https://stealthbench.com.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Large Empirical Case Study: Go-Explore adapted for AI Red Team Testing

Production LLM agents with tool-using capabilities require security testing despite their safety training. We adapt Go-Explore to evaluate GPT-4o-mini across 28 experimental runs spanning six research questions. We find that random-seed variance dominates algorithmic parameters, yielding an 8x spread in outcomes; single-seed comparisons are unreliable, while multi-seed averaging materially reduces variance in our setup. Reward shaping consistently harms performance, causing exploration collapse in 94% of runs or producing 18 false positives with zero verified attacks. In our environment, simple state signatures outperform complex ones. For comprehensive security testing, ensembles provide attack-type diversity, whereas single agents optimize coverage within a given attack type. Overall, these results suggest that seed variance and targeted domain knowledge can outweigh algorithmic sophistication when testing safety-trained models.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Can We Trust Large Language Models Generated Code? A Framework for In-Context Learning, Security Patterns, and Code Evaluations Across Diverse LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot have revolutionized automated code generation in software engineering. However, as these models are increasingly utilized for software development, concerns have arisen regarding the security and quality of the generated code. These concerns stem from LLMs being primarily trained on publicly available code repositories and internet-based textual data, which may contain insecure code. This presents a significant risk of perpetuating vulnerabilities in the generated code, creating potential attack vectors for exploitation by malicious actors. Our research aims to tackle these issues by introducing a framework for secure behavioral learning of LLMs through In-Content Learning (ICL) patterns during the code generation process, followed by rigorous security evaluations. To achieve this, we have selected four diverse LLMs for experimentation. We have evaluated these coding LLMs across three programming languages and identified security vulnerabilities and code smells. The code is generated through ICL with curated problem sets and undergoes rigorous security testing to evaluate the overall quality and trustworthiness of the generated code. Our research indicates that ICL-driven one-shot and few-shot learning patterns can enhance code security, reducing vulnerabilities in various programming scenarios. Developers and researchers should know that LLMs have a limited understanding of security principles. This may lead to security breaches when the generated code is deployed in production systems. Our research highlights LLMs are a potential source of new vulnerabilities to the software supply chain. It is important to consider this when using LLMs for code generation. This research article offers insights into improving LLM security and encourages proactive use of LLMs for code generation to ensure software system safety.

cs.CR↗