STAF : Leveraging LLMs for Automated AttackTree-Based Security Test Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modern automotive development, security testing is critical for safeguarding systems against increasingly advanced threats. Attack trees are widely used to systematically represent potential attack vectors, but generating comprehensive test cases from these trees remains a labor-intensive, error-prone task that has seen limited automation in the context of testing vehicular systems. This paper introduces STAF (Security Test Automation Framework), a novel approach to automating security test case generation. Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and a four-step self-corrective Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework, STAF automates the generation of executable security test cases from attack trees, providing an end-to-end solution that encompasses the entire attack surface. We particularly show the elements and processes needed to provide an LLM to actually produce sensible and executable automotive security test suites, along with the integration with an automated testing framework. We further compare our tailored approach with general purpose (vanilla) LLMs and the performance of different LLMs (namely GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek) using our approach. We also demonstrate the method of our operation step-by-step in a concrete case study. Our results show significant improvements in efficiency, accuracy, scalability, and easy integration in any workflow, marking a substantial advancement in automating automotive security testing methodologies. Using TARAs as an input for verfication tests, we create synergies by connecting two vital elements of a secure automotive development process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".