Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?

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.

A Taxonomy of Prompt Defects in LLM Systems

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become key components of modern software, with prompts acting as their de-facto programming interface. However, prompt design remains largely empirical and small mistakes can cascade into unreliable, insecure, or inefficient behavior. This paper presents the first systematic survey and taxonomy of prompt defects, recurring ways that prompts fail to elicit their intended behavior from LLMs. We organize defects along six dimensions: (1) Specification and Intent, (2) Input and Content, (3) Structure and Formatting, (4) Context and Memory, (5) Performance and Efficiency, and (6) Maintainability and Engineering. Each dimension is refined into fine-grained subtypes, illustrated with concrete examples and root cause analysis. Grounded in software engineering principles, we show how these defects surface in real development workflows and examine their downstream effects. For every subtype, we distill mitigation strategies that span emerging prompt engineering patterns, automated guardrails, testing harnesses, and evaluation frameworks. We then summarize these strategies in a master taxonomy that links defect, impact, and remedy. We conclude with open research challenges and a call for rigorous engineering-oriented methodologies to ensure that LLM-driven systems are dependable by design.

LLM4Vuln: A Unified Evaluation Framework for Decoupling and Enhancing LLMs' Vulnerability Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential for many downstream tasks, including those requiring human-level intelligence, such as vulnerability detection. However, recent attempts to use LLMs for vulnerability detection are still preliminary, as they lack an in-depth understanding of a subject LLM's vulnerability reasoning capability -- whether it originates from the model itself or from external assistance, such as invoking tool support and retrieving vulnerability knowledge. In this paper, we aim to decouple LLMs' vulnerability reasoning capability from their other capabilities, including the ability to actively seek additional information (e.g., via function calling in SOTA models), adopt relevant vulnerability knowledge (e.g., via vector-based matching and retrieval), and follow instructions to output structured results. To this end, we propose a unified evaluation framework named LLM4Vuln, which separates LLMs' vulnerability reasoning from their other capabilities and evaluates how LLMs' vulnerability reasoning could be enhanced when combined with the enhancement of other capabilities. To demonstrate the effectiveness of LLM4Vuln, we have designed controlled experiments using 75 ground-truth smart contract vulnerabilities, which were extensively audited as high-risk on Code4rena from August to November 2023, and tested them in 4,950 different scenarios across three representative LLMs (GPT-4, Mixtral, and Code Llama). Our results not only reveal ten findings regarding the varying effects of knowledge enhancement, context supplementation, prompt schemes, and models but also enable us to identify 9 zero-day vulnerabilities in two pilot bug bounty programs with over 1,000 USD being awarded.