MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fine-Tuning LLMs for Code Mutation: A New Era of Cyber Threats

2024· article· en· W4406460194 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityCode (set theory)MutationInternet privacyProgramming languageGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it