Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17671v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 11:43:10 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?
• Abstract summary: Porting Benchmark is a curated dataset of 1,234 security patch backporting cases.<n>Our results show that aligned evaluation changes the apparent performance landscape.<n>We identify four root-cause categories (missing target API awareness, cross-version semantic mismatch, non-local dependency propagation failure, and patch construction or localization failure)
• Score: 15.423124944381081
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated security patch backporting is critical for mitigating N-day vulnerabilities. Recent tools report success rates above 80% on their respective datasets. However, these evaluations are often confined to homogeneous environments, such as one repository or specific project versions. Consequently, it remains unclear how well these tools generalize beyond their originally targeted scenarios. We present Porting Benchmark, a curated dataset of 1,234 security patch backporting cases spanning cross-version, cross-branch, and cross-repository scenarios, paired with a common evaluation framework. Using this benchmark, we evaluate five tools spanning program analysis, LLM prompting, and LLM agents under aligned settings. Our results show that aligned evaluation changes the apparent performance landscape: PortGPT and TSBPort remain comparatively strong on the Replication Dataset, while FixMorph and Mystique degrade substantially under the common protocol. Performance degrades sharply on structurally complex patches: the best commit-level success rate falls from 85.2% on Type-I patches to 24.0% on Type-IV. We identify four root-cause categories (missing target API awareness, cross-version semantic mismatch, non-local dependency propagation failure, and patch construction or localization failure) and derive concrete directions for next-generation tool design. On a 45-case dynamically validated subset with verified test cases and constructed POCs, we further observe that reference-based benchmark scores do not fully capture real-world remediation: exact match sharply under-credits harder target adaptations, while executable validation reveals residual integration failures in the target that static reference agreement misses. Executable-feedback refinement provides limited but measurable recovery on the hardest executable cases.

Related papers

• Vulnerability Localization Benchmark: Measuring Agentic Security Analysis at Repository Scale [54.83971397981572]
  Language-model agents increasingly operate over complete software repositories.<n> cybersecurity evaluations measure whether they can detect, reproduce, or repair vulnerabilities rather than whether they can locate the relevant code.<n>We study vulnerability localization: given a weakness class and an unfamiliar repository, identify the implementation files associated with that weakness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T17:44:51Z)
• Verifier-First Evaluation of Agentic LLMs for Infrastructure-as-Code Generation [0.0]
  Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) generation from natural language requires satisfying provider schemas, dependency planning, and organizational policy constraints.<n>We present a verifier-first empirical study of seven agentic strategies for Terraform generation evaluated on IaC-Eval v2, a modernized 186-task AWS/Terraform benchmark with Rego v1 policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T12:43:27Z)
• ATBench: A Diverse and Realistic Agent Trajectory Benchmark for Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis [96.92417622318267]
  ATBench is a trajectory-level benchmark for structured, diverse, and realistic evaluation of agent safety.<n>It organizes agentic risk along three dimensions: risk source, failure mode, and real-world harm.<n>It contains 1,000 trajectories (503 safe and 497 unsafe), averaging 9.01 turns and 3.95k tokens, with 1,954 invoked tools drawn from pools spanning 2,084 available tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T13:26:20Z)
• Are Benchmark Tests Strong Enough? Mutation-Guided Diagnosis and Augmentation of Regression Suites [49.16055123488827]
  Insufficiently strong test suites can admit plausible yet semantically incorrect patches, inflating reported success rates.<n>We introduce STING, a framework for targeted test augmentation that uses semantically altered program variants as diagnostic stressors.<n>STING produces 1,014 validated tests spanning 211 instances and increases patch-region line and branch coverage by 10.8% and 9.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T01:13:40Z)
• DEP: A Decentralized Large Language Model Evaluation Protocol [51.3646001384887]
  Decentralized Evaluation Protocol (DEP) is a decentralized yet unified and standardized evaluation framework.<n>By decoupling users, LLMs, and benchmarks, DEP enables modular, plug-and-play evaluation.<n>We develop DEP Toolkit, a protocol-compatible toolkit that supports features such as breakpoint resume, concurrent requests, and congestion control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T16:10:16Z)
• When Benchmarks Lie: Evaluating Malicious Prompt Classifiers Under True Distribution Shift [0.0]
  We present a comprehensive analysis using a benchmark of 18 datasets spanning harmful requests, jailbreaks, indirect prompt injections, and extraction attacks.<n>We propose Leave-One-Dataset-Out (LODO) evaluation to measure true out-of-distribution generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T14:21:43Z)
• TestExplora: Benchmarking LLMs for Proactive Bug Discovery via Repository-Level Test Generation [19.43198506241428]
  We present TestExplora, a benchmark designed to evaluate Large Language Models as proactive testers.<n>TestExplora contains 2,389 tasks from 482 repositories and hides all defect-related signals.<n>Our evaluation reveals a significant capability gap: state-of-the-art models achieve a maximum Fail-to-Pass (F2P) rate of only 16.06%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T03:22:51Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• 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)
• VulnRepairEval: An Exploit-Based Evaluation Framework for Assessing Large Language Model Vulnerability Repair Capabilities [41.85494398578654]
  VulnRepairEval is an evaluation framework anchored in functional Proof-of-Concept exploits.<n>Our framework delivers a comprehensive, containerized evaluation pipeline that enables reproducible differential assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T14:06:10Z)
• VADER: A Human-Evaluated Benchmark for Vulnerability Assessment, Detection, Explanation, and Remediation [0.8087612190556891]
  VADER comprises 174 real-world software vulnerabilities, each carefully curated from GitHub and annotated by security experts.<n>For each vulnerability case, models are tasked with identifying the flaw, classifying it using Common Weaknession (CWE), explaining its underlying cause, proposing a patch, and formulating a test plan.<n>Using a one-shot prompting strategy, we benchmark six state-of-the-art LLMs (Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5, Grok 3 Beta, and o3) on VADER.<n>Our results show that current state-of-the-
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T01:20:44Z)
• SeCodePLT: A Unified Platform for Evaluating the Security of Code GenAI [58.29510889419971]
  Existing benchmarks for evaluating the security risks and capabilities of code-generating large language models (LLMs) face several key limitations.<n>We introduce a general and scalable benchmark construction framework that begins with manually validated, high-quality seed examples and expands them via targeted mutations.<n>Applying this framework to Python, C/C++, and Java, we build SeCodePLT, a dataset of more than 5.9k samples spanning 44 CWE-based risk categories and three security capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T21:17:22Z)

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.