Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Dubniczky, R A

The Hidden DNA of LLM-Generated JavaScript: Structural Patterns Enable High-Accuracy Authorship Attribution

Authors: Norbert Tihanyi, Bilel Cherif, Richard A. Dubniczky, Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Tamás Bisztray

Abstract: In this paper, we present the first large-scale study exploring whether JavaScript code generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) can reveal which model produced it, enabling reliable authorship attribution and model fingerprinting. With the rapid rise of AI-generated code, attribution is playing a critical role in detecting vulnerabilities, flagging malicious content, and ensuring accountability.… ▽ More In this paper, we present the first large-scale study exploring whether JavaScript code generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) can reveal which model produced it, enabling reliable authorship attribution and model fingerprinting. With the rapid rise of AI-generated code, attribution is playing a critical role in detecting vulnerabilities, flagging malicious content, and ensuring accountability. While AI-vs-human detection usually treats AI as a single category we show that individual LLMs leave unique stylistic signatures, even among models belonging to the same family or parameter size. To this end, we introduce LLM-NodeJS, a dataset of 50,000 Node.js back-end programs from 20 large language models. Each has four transformed variants, yielding 250,000 unique JavaScript samples and two additional representations (JSIR and AST) for diverse research applications. Using this dataset, we benchmark traditional machine learning classifiers against fine-tuned Transformer encoders and introduce CodeT5-JSA, a custom architecture derived from the 770M-parameter CodeT5 model with its decoder removed and a modified classification head. It achieves 95.8% accuracy on five-class attribution, 94.6% on ten-class, and 88.5% on twenty-class tasks, surpassing other tested models such as BERT, CodeBERT, and Longformer. We demonstrate that classifiers capture deeper stylistic regularities in program dataflow and structure, rather than relying on surface-level features. As a result, attribution remains effective even after mangling, comment removal, and heavy code transformations. To support open science and reproducibility, we release the LLM-NodeJS dataset, Google Colab training scripts, and all related materials on GitHub: https://github.com/LLM-NodeJS-dataset. △ Less

Submitted 12 October, 2025; originally announced October 2025.

You Have Been LaTeXpOsEd: A Systematic Analysis of Information Leakage in Preprint Archives Using Large Language Models

Authors: Richard A. Dubniczky, Bertalan Borsos, Tihanyi Norbert

Abstract: The widespread use of preprint repositories such as arXiv has accelerated the communication of scientific results but also introduced overlooked security risks. Beyond PDFs, these platforms provide unrestricted access to original source materials, including LaTeX sources, auxiliary code, figures, and embedded comments. In the absence of sanitization, submissions may disclose sensitive information… ▽ More The widespread use of preprint repositories such as arXiv has accelerated the communication of scientific results but also introduced overlooked security risks. Beyond PDFs, these platforms provide unrestricted access to original source materials, including LaTeX sources, auxiliary code, figures, and embedded comments. In the absence of sanitization, submissions may disclose sensitive information that adversaries can harvest using open-source intelligence. In this work, we present the first large-scale security audit of preprint archives, analyzing more than 1.2 TB of source data from 100,000 arXiv submissions. We introduce LaTeXpOsEd, a four-stage framework that integrates pattern matching, logical filtering, traditional harvesting techniques, and large language models (LLMs) to uncover hidden disclosures within non-referenced files and LaTeX comments. To evaluate LLMs' secret-detection capabilities, we introduce LLMSec-DB, a benchmark on which we tested 25 state-of-the-art models. Our analysis uncovered thousands of PII leaks, GPS-tagged EXIF files, publicly available Google Drive and Dropbox folders, editable private SharePoint links, exposed GitHub and Google credentials, and cloud API keys. We also uncovered confidential author communications, internal disagreements, and conference submission credentials, exposing information that poses serious reputational risks to both researchers and institutions. We urge the research community and repository operators to take immediate action to close these hidden security gaps. To support open science, we release all scripts and methods from this study but withhold sensitive findings that could be misused, in line with ethical principles. The source code and related material are available at the project website https://github.com/LaTeXpOsEd △ Less

Submitted 4 October, 2025; originally announced October 2025.

I Know Which LLM Wrote Your Code Last Summer: LLM generated Code Stylometry for Authorship Attribution

Authors: Tamas Bisztray, Bilel Cherif, Richard A. Dubniczky, Nils Gruschka, Bertalan Borsos, Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Attila Kovacs, Vasileios Mavroeidis, Norbert Tihanyi

Abstract: Detecting AI-generated code, deepfakes, and other synthetic content is an emerging research challenge. As code generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) becomes more common, identifying the specific model behind each sample is increasingly important. This paper presents the first systematic study of LLM authorship attribution for C programs. We released CodeT5-Authorship, a novel model that uses o… ▽ More Detecting AI-generated code, deepfakes, and other synthetic content is an emerging research challenge. As code generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) becomes more common, identifying the specific model behind each sample is increasingly important. This paper presents the first systematic study of LLM authorship attribution for C programs. We released CodeT5-Authorship, a novel model that uses only the encoder layers from the original CodeT5 encoder-decoder architecture, discarding the decoder to focus on classification. Our model's encoder output (first token) is passed through a two-layer classification head with GELU activation and dropout, producing a probability distribution over possible authors. To evaluate our approach, we introduce LLM-AuthorBench, a benchmark of 32,000 compilable C programs generated by eight state-of-the-art LLMs across diverse tasks. We compare our model to seven traditional ML classifiers and eight fine-tuned transformer models, including BERT, RoBERTa, CodeBERT, ModernBERT, DistilBERT, DeBERTa-V3, Longformer, and LoRA-fine-tuned Qwen2-1.5B. In binary classification, our model achieves 97.56% accuracy in distinguishing C programs generated by closely related models such as GPT-4.1 and GPT-4o, and 95.40% accuracy for multi-class attribution among five leading LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude 3.5 Haiku, GPT-4.1, Llama 3.3, and DeepSeek-V3). To support open science, we release the CodeT5-Authorship architecture, the LLM-AuthorBench benchmark, and all relevant Google Colab scripts on GitHub: https://github.com/LLMauthorbench/. △ Less

Submitted 18 June, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

DFIR-Metric: A Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models in Digital Forensics and Incident Response

Authors: Bilel Cherif, Tamas Bisztray, Richard A. Dubniczky, Aaesha Aldahmani, Saeed Alshehhi, Norbert Tihanyi

Abstract: Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) involves analyzing digital evidence to support legal investigations. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new opportunities in DFIR tasks such as log analysis and memory forensics, but their susceptibility to errors and hallucinations raises concerns in high-stakes contexts. Despite growing interest, there is no comprehensive benchmark to evaluate LLMs… ▽ More Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) involves analyzing digital evidence to support legal investigations. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new opportunities in DFIR tasks such as log analysis and memory forensics, but their susceptibility to errors and hallucinations raises concerns in high-stakes contexts. Despite growing interest, there is no comprehensive benchmark to evaluate LLMs across both theoretical and practical DFIR domains. To address this gap, we present DFIR-Metric, a benchmark with three components: (1) Knowledge Assessment: a set of 700 expert-reviewed multiple-choice questions sourced from industry-standard certifications and official documentation; (2) Realistic Forensic Challenges: 150 CTF-style tasks testing multi-step reasoning and evidence correlation; and (3) Practical Analysis: 500 disk and memory forensics cases from the NIST Computer Forensics Tool Testing Program (CFTT). We evaluated 14 LLMs using DFIR-Metric, analyzing both their accuracy and consistency across trials. We also introduce a new metric, the Task Understanding Score (TUS), designed to more effectively evaluate models in scenarios where they achieve near-zero accuracy. This benchmark offers a rigorous, reproducible foundation for advancing AI in digital forensics. All scripts, artifacts, and results are available on the project website at https://github.com/DFIR-Metric. △ Less

Submitted 26 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Vulnerability Detection: From Formal Verification to Large Language Models and Hybrid Approaches: A Comprehensive Overview

Authors: Norbert Tihanyi, Tamas Bisztray, Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Bilel Cherif, Richard A. Dubniczky, Ridhi Jain, Lucas C. Cordeiro

Abstract: Software testing and verification are critical for ensuring the reliability and security of modern software systems. Traditionally, formal verification techniques, such as model checking and theorem proving, have provided rigorous frameworks for detecting bugs and vulnerabilities. However, these methods often face scalability challenges when applied to complex, real-world programs. Recently, the a… ▽ More Software testing and verification are critical for ensuring the reliability and security of modern software systems. Traditionally, formal verification techniques, such as model checking and theorem proving, have provided rigorous frameworks for detecting bugs and vulnerabilities. However, these methods often face scalability challenges when applied to complex, real-world programs. Recently, the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced a new paradigm for software analysis, leveraging their ability to understand insecure coding practices. Although LLMs demonstrate promising capabilities in tasks such as bug prediction and invariant generation, they lack the formal guarantees of classical methods. This paper presents a comprehensive study of state-of-the-art software testing and verification, focusing on three key approaches: classical formal methods, LLM-based analysis, and emerging hybrid techniques, which combine their strengths. We explore each approach's strengths, limitations, and practical applications, highlighting the potential of hybrid systems to address the weaknesses of standalone methods. We analyze whether integrating formal rigor with LLM-driven insights can enhance the effectiveness and scalability of software verification, exploring their viability as a pathway toward more robust and adaptive testing frameworks. △ Less

Submitted 13 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

CASTLE: Benchmarking Dataset for Static Code Analyzers and LLMs towards CWE Detection

Authors: Richard A. Dubniczky, Krisztofer Zoltán Horvát, Tamás Bisztray, Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Lucas C. Cordeiro, Norbert Tihanyi

Abstract: Identifying vulnerabilities in source code is crucial, especially in critical software components. Existing methods such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, formal verification, and recently Large Language Models are widely used to detect security flaws. This paper introduces CASTLE (CWE Automated Security Testing and Low-Level Evaluation), a benchmarking framework for evaluating the vulnerabili… ▽ More Identifying vulnerabilities in source code is crucial, especially in critical software components. Existing methods such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, formal verification, and recently Large Language Models are widely used to detect security flaws. This paper introduces CASTLE (CWE Automated Security Testing and Low-Level Evaluation), a benchmarking framework for evaluating the vulnerability detection capabilities of different methods. We assess 13 static analysis tools, 10 LLMs, and 2 formal verification tools using a hand-crafted dataset of 250 micro-benchmark programs covering 25 common CWEs. We propose the CASTLE Score, a novel evaluation metric to ensure fair comparison. Our results reveal key differences: ESBMC (a formal verification tool) minimizes false positives but struggles with vulnerabilities beyond model checking, such as weak cryptography or SQL injection. Static analyzers suffer from high false positives, increasing manual validation efforts for developers. LLMs perform exceptionally well in the CASTLE dataset when identifying vulnerabilities in small code snippets. However, their accuracy declines, and hallucinations increase as the code size grows. These results suggest that LLMs could play a pivotal role in future security solutions, particularly within code completion frameworks, where they can provide real-time guidance to prevent vulnerabilities. The dataset is accessible at https://github.com/CASTLE-Benchmark. △ Less

Submitted 31 March, 2025; v1 submitted 12 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

Dynamic Intelligence Assessment: Benchmarking LLMs on the Road to AGI with a Focus on Model Confidence

Authors: Norbert Tihanyi, Tamas Bisztray, Richard A. Dubniczky, Rebeka Toth, Bertalan Borsos, Bilel Cherif, Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Lajos Muzsai, Ridhi Jain, Ryan Marinelli, Lucas C. Cordeiro, Merouane Debbah, Vasileios Mavroeidis, Audun Josang

Abstract: As machine intelligence evolves, the need to test and compare the problem-solving abilities of different AI models grows. However, current benchmarks are often simplistic, allowing models to perform uniformly well and making it difficult to distinguish their capabilities. Additionally, benchmarks typically rely on static question-answer pairs that the models might memorize or guess. To address the… ▽ More As machine intelligence evolves, the need to test and compare the problem-solving abilities of different AI models grows. However, current benchmarks are often simplistic, allowing models to perform uniformly well and making it difficult to distinguish their capabilities. Additionally, benchmarks typically rely on static question-answer pairs that the models might memorize or guess. To address these limitations, we introduce Dynamic Intelligence Assessment (DIA), a novel methodology for testing AI models using dynamic question templates and improved metrics across multiple disciplines such as mathematics, cryptography, cybersecurity, and computer science. The accompanying dataset, DIA-Bench, contains a diverse collection of challenge templates with mutable parameters presented in various formats, including text, PDFs, compiled binaries, visual puzzles, and CTF-style cybersecurity challenges. Our framework introduces four new metrics to assess a model's reliability and confidence across multiple attempts. These metrics revealed that even simple questions are frequently answered incorrectly when posed in varying forms, highlighting significant gaps in models' reliability. Notably, API models like GPT-4o often overestimated their mathematical capabilities, while ChatGPT-4o demonstrated better performance due to effective tool usage. In self-assessment, OpenAI's o1-mini proved to have the best judgement on what tasks it should attempt to solve. We evaluated 25 state-of-the-art LLMs using DIA-Bench, showing that current models struggle with complex tasks and often display unexpectedly low confidence, even with simpler questions. The DIA framework sets a new standard for assessing not only problem-solving but also a model's adaptive intelligence and ability to assess its limitations. The dataset is publicly available on the project's page: https://github.com/DIA-Bench. △ Less

Submitted 22 November, 2024; v1 submitted 20 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.