Fine-Tuning LLMs for Code Mutation: A New Era of Cyber Threats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly improved their capabilities in natural language processing and code synthesis, enabling more complex applications across different fields. This paper explores the application of LLMs in the context of code mutation, a process where the structure of program code is altered without changing its functionality. Traditionally, code mutation has been employed to increase software robustness in mission-critical applications. Additionally, mutation engines have been exploited by malware developers to evade the signature-based detection methods employed by malware detection systems. Existing code mutation engines, often used by such threat actors, typically result in only limited variations in the malware, which can still be identified through static code analysis. However, the agility demonstrated by an LLM-based code synthesizer could significantly change this threat landscape by allowing for more complex code mutations that are not easily detected using static analysis. One can increase variations of codes synthesized by a pre-trained LLM through fine-tuning and retraining. This process is what we refer to as code mutation training. In this paper, we propose a novel definition of code mutation training tailored for pre-trained LLM-based code synthesizers and demonstrate this training on a lightweight pre-trained model. Our approach involves restructuring (i.e., mutating) code at the subroutine level, which allows for more manageable mutations while maintaining the semantic integrity verified through unit testing. Our experimental results illustrate the effectiveness of our approach in improving code mutation capabilities of LLM-based program synthesizers in producing varied and functionally correct code solutions, showcasing their potential to transform the landscape of code mutation and the threats associated with it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".