HoF-Bench: Rediscovering Real AI-Discovered CVEs Without Frontier Models

LLM-based analyzers have begun finding real vulnerabilities in mature open-source projects: AISLE's analyzer is credited with more than 280 CVEs across 78 projects, including OpenSSL, curl, and GnuTLS. We introduce HoF-Bench (named after AISLE's public Hall of Fame), a benchmark built from 95 of these public AI-discovered CVEs across eight repositories pinned at vulnerable commits. Analyzers receive source and target-file scope but not CVE identifiers, descriptions, fixes, or expected mechanisms; a detector-blinded frontier-model judge credits only findings that identify the same code path, root cause, attack condition, and impact. A deliberately minimal LLM-based analyzer rediscovers up to 65 of the 95 CVEs (68%) under this strict protocol. No frontier model performs detection anywhere in the study. The ten detector backbones are five open-weight models (21B--284B total parameters, 3--13B active) and five proprietary small or "flash"-tier models. All of them run in the fixed scaffold with four repeated passes, an optional generated-context stage, and a replayable multi-round triage stage (7,600 model--CVE pass records). Difficulty is strongly structured by language; the CVEs missed by every model concentrate in C infrastructure code. HoF-Bench provides a compact test bed for comparing vulnerability scanners, their reliability across repeated runs, and the candidate volume they create. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/aisleinc/HoF-Bench.

Counteracting Concept Drift by Learning with Future Malware Predictions

The accuracy of deployed malware-detection classifiers degrades over time due to changes in data distributions and increasing discrepancies between training and testing data. This phenomenon is known as the concept drift. While the concept drift can be caused by various reasons in general, new malicious files are created by malware authors with a clear intention of avoiding detection. The existence of the intention opens a possibility for predicting such future samples. Including predicted samples in training data should consequently increase the accuracy of the classifiers on new testing data. We compare two methods for predicting future samples: (1) adversarial training and (2) generative adversarial networks (GANs). The first method explicitly seeks for adversarial examples against the classifier that are then used as a part of training data. Similarly, GANs also generate synthetic training data. We use GANs to learn changes in data distributions within different time periods of training data and then apply these changes to generate samples that could be in testing data. We compare these prediction methods on two different datasets: (1) Ember public dataset and (2) the internal dataset of files incoming to Avast. We show that while adversarial training yields more robust classifiers, this method is not a good predictor of future malware in general. This is in contrast with previously reported positive results in different domains (including natural language processing and spam detection). On the other hand, we show that GANs can be successfully used as predictors of future malware. We specifically examine malware families that exhibit significant changes in their data distributions over time and the experimental results confirm that GAN-based predictions can significantly improve the accuracy of the classifier on new, previously unseen data.