Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18740v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:40:27 GMT
• Title: Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review
• Abstract summary: We study whether confirmation bias affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks.<n>Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt.<n>Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata.
• Score: 6.417595678110472
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Security code reviews increasingly rely on systems integrating Large Language Models (LLMs), ranging from interactive assistants to autonomous agents in CI/CD pipelines. We study whether confirmation bias (i.e., the tendency to favor interpretations that align with prior expectations) affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks. We conduct two complementary studies. Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt. Framing a change as bug-free reduces vulnerability detection rates by 16-93%, with strongly asymmetric effects: false negatives increase sharply while false positive rates change little. Bias effects vary by vulnerability type, with injection flaws being more susceptible to them than memory corruption bugs. Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata. Adversarial framing succeeds in 35% of cases against GitHub Copilot (interactive assistant) under one-shot attacks and in 88% of cases against Claude Code (autonomous agent) in real project configurations where adversaries can iteratively refine their framing to increase attack success. Debiasing via metadata redaction and explicit instructions restores detection in all interactive cases and 94% of autonomous cases. Our results show that confirmation bias poses a weakness in LLM-based code review, with implications on how AI-assisted development tools are deployed.

Related papers

• SIR: Self-improving Red-teaming for Compute Use Agents [71.71987044117371]
  Computer use agents (CUAs) are vision-language models that perceive a screen and act on a real operating system through mouse, keyboard, and terminal.<n>Because they can be exposed to untrusted content while operating, they are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI)<n>We present SIR, a black box IPI attack that composes stealthy injections from a small library of reusable principles stated in plain language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T03:39:43Z)
• Detecting Contaminated Code-Generation Prompt Batches via Influence Functions [4.185678330063222]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, yet they remain vulnerable to prompts that elicit insecure implementations.<n>We propose CodeSIFT, a threat-model-agnostic detection method that leverages influence functions to identify batches of prompts that induce anomalous model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T13:37:53Z)
• ALIBI: Adaptive Agentic Attacks on LLM-Based Vulnerability Detectors via Adversarial Code Comments [12.021872048536766]
  Large language models are increasingly deployed for security-sensitive tasks such as vulnerability detection and code review.<n>Their reliance on natural-language context embedded in source code exposes a previously underexplored attack surface: adversarial comments.<n>We present ALIBI, an automated adaptive black-box attack framework that generates and iteratively refines adversarial comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T18:13:28Z)
• Decoupling Reconnaissance and Exploitation: Measuring the Capability Boundaries of LLM-Based Web Penetration Testing [8.293465530619246]
  We propose a two-stage decoupled evaluation framework that separates exploit execution from reconnaissance.<n>We empirically evaluate five open-source penetration-testing agents, covering multiagent, monolithic, and graph-driven architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T02:51:58Z)
• The Semantic Trap: Do Fine-tuned LLMs Learn Vulnerability Root Cause or Just Functional Pattern? [14.472036099680961]
  We propose TrapEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework designed to disentangle vulnerability root cause from functional pattern.<n>We fine-tune five representative state-of-the-art LLMs across three model families and evaluate them under cross-dataset testing, semantic-preservings, and varying degrees of semantic gap measured by CodeBLEU.<n>Our findings serve as a wake-up call: high benchmark scores on traditional datasets may be illusory, masking the model's inability to understand the true causal logic of vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:19:17Z)
• AI Security Beyond Core Domains: Resume Screening as a Case Study of Adversarial Vulnerabilities in Specialized LLM Applications [71.27518152526686]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at text comprehension and generation, making them ideal for automated tasks like code review and content moderation.<n>LLMs can be manipulated by "adversarial instructions" hidden in input data, such as resumes or code, causing them to deviate from their intended task.<n>This paper introduces a benchmark to assess this vulnerability in resume screening, revealing attack success rates exceeding 80% for certain attack types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:42:09Z)
• DiffuGuard: How Intrinsic Safety is Lost and Found in Diffusion Large Language Models [50.21378052667732]
  We conduct an in-depth analysis of dLLM vulnerabilities to jailbreak attacks across two distinct dimensions: intra-step and inter-step dynamics.<n>We propose DiffuGuard, a training-free defense framework that addresses vulnerabilities through a dual-stage approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T05:17:10Z)
• VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
  VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z)
• Explicit Vulnerability Generation with LLMs: An Investigation Beyond Adversarial Attacks [0.5218155982819203]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as code assistants.<n>This study examines a more direct threat: open-source LLMs generating vulnerable code when prompted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T08:36:26Z)
• Revisiting Backdoor Attacks on LLMs: A Stealthy and Practical Poisoning Framework via Harmless Inputs [54.90315421117162]
  We propose a novel poisoning method via completely harmless data.<n>Inspired by the causal reasoning in auto-regressive LLMs, we aim to establish robust associations between triggers and an affirmative response prefix.<n>We observe an interesting resistance phenomenon where the LLM initially appears to agree but subsequently refuses to answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T08:13:59Z)
• AegisLLM: Scaling Agentic Systems for Self-Reflective Defense in LLM Security [74.22452069013289]
  AegisLLM is a cooperative multi-agent defense against adversarial attacks and information leakage.<n>We show that scaling agentic reasoning system at test-time substantially enhances robustness without compromising model utility.<n> Comprehensive evaluations across key threat scenarios, including unlearning and jailbreaking, demonstrate the effectiveness of AegisLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T17:36:05Z)
• Uncertainty is Fragile: Manipulating Uncertainty in Large Language Models [79.76293901420146]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed across various high-stakes domains, where the reliability of their outputs is crucial. Our research investigates the fragility of uncertainty estimation and explores potential attacks. We demonstrate that an attacker can embed a backdoor in LLMs, which, when activated by a specific trigger in the input, manipulates the model's uncertainty without affecting the final output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T23:41:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.