arXiv subjects

Mikola Lysenko

Publications and source records attributed to Mikola Lysenko.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

VeriPort: Automated and Verified Patch Backporting at Scale

One of the key challenges for securing the software supply chain is addressing known vulnerabilities in third-party open-source dependencies. Security patches are frequently only available for the latest version of a dependency, leaving developers with the choice of either upgrading to the latest version (risking breaking changes) or manually backporting the security fix. Prior work backports to a single version that must be specified in advance and does not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their patches block exploitation and preserve functionality. In this paper, we present VeriPort, an end-to-end agentic system that scalably backports a patch for a given vulnerability advisory to every affected version of the package. For each backport, VeriPort builds a chain of evidence to confirm that the patch blocks exploitation and preserves intended behavior. VeriPort reliably resolves 95.3% of 128 backporting tasks in BackportBench, outperforming the best existing solution (Claude Code) by 22.7 percentage points. We further deployed VeriPort on 169 high- and critical-severity CVEs and have generated over 5,000 verified backported patches. Moreover, VeriPort's value extends beyond simply backporting patches. It uncovered 2,100 versions incorrectly reported as affected and 127 previously unidentified vulnerable versions across 92 advisories, and 23 advisories have since been corrected upstream by removing 387 versions and adding 81.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

ConfuGuard: Using Metadata to Detect Active and Stealthy Package Confusion Attacks Accurately and at Scale

Package confusion attacks such as typosquatting threaten software supply chains. Attackers make packages with names that syntactically or semantically resemble legitimate ones, tricking engineers into installing malware. While prior work has developed defenses against package confusions in some software package registries, notably NPM, PyPI, and RubyGems, gaps remain: high false-positive rates, generalization to more software package ecosystems, and insights from real-world deployment. In this work, we introduce ConfuGuard, a state-of-art detector for package confusion threats. We begin by presenting the first empirical analysis of benign signals derived from prior package confusion data, uncovering their threat patterns, engineering practices, and measurable attributes. Advancing existing detectors, we leverage package metadata to distinguish benign packages, and extend support from three up to seven software package registries. Our approach significantly reduces false positive rates (from 80% to 28%), at the cost of an additional 14s average latency to filter out benign packages by analyzing the package metadata. ConfuGuard is used in production at our industry partner, whose analysts have already confirmed 630 real attacks detected by ConfuGuard.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Leveraging Large Language Models to Detect npm Malicious Packages

Existing malicious code detection techniques demand the integration of multiple tools to detect different malware patterns, often suffering from high misclassification rates. Therefore, malicious code detection techniques could be enhanced by adopting advanced, more automated approaches to achieve high accuracy and a low misclassification rate. The goal of this study is to aid security analysts in detecting malicious packages by empirically studying the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in detecting malicious code. We present SocketAI, a malicious code review workflow to detect malicious code. To evaluate the effectiveness of SocketAI, we leverage a benchmark dataset of 5,115 npm packages, of which 2,180 packages have malicious code. We conducted a baseline comparison of GPT-3 and GPT-4 models with the state-of-the-art CodeQL static analysis tool, using 39 custom CodeQL rules developed in prior research to detect malicious Javascript code. We also compare the effectiveness of static analysis as a pre-screener with SocketAI workflow, measuring the number of files that need to be analyzed. and the associated costs. Additionally, we performed a qualitative study to understand the types of malicious activities detected or missed by our workflow. Our baseline comparison demonstrates a 16% and 9% improvement over static analysis in precision and F1 scores, respectively. GPT-4 achieves higher accuracy with 99% precision and 97% F1 scores, while GPT-3 offers a more cost-effective balance at 91% precision and 94% F1 scores. Pre-screening files with a static analyzer reduces the number of files requiring LLM analysis by 77.9% and decreases costs by 60.9% for GPT-3 and 76.1% for GPT-4. Our qualitative analysis identified data theft, execution of arbitrary code, and suspicious domain categories as the top detected malicious packages.

cs.CR↗