EVIL: Exploiting Software via Natural Language
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Writing exploits for security assessment is a challenging task. The writer needs to master programming and obfuscation techniques to develop a successful exploit. To make the task easier, we propose an approach (EVIL) to automatically generate exploits in assembly/Python language from descriptions in natural language. The approach leverages Neural Machine Translation (NMT) techniques and a dataset that we developed for this work. We present an extensive experimental study to evaluate the feasibility of EVIL, using both automatic and manual analysis, and both at generating individual statements and entire exploits. The generated code achieved high accuracy in terms of syntactic and semantic correctness.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 3; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2023Vulnerabilities in AI Code Generators: Exploring Targeted Data Poisoning Attackscited by 33
- 2022Who Evaluates the Evaluators? On Automatic Metrics for Assessing AI-based Offensive Code Generatorscited by 11
- 2023Automating the Correctness Assessment of AI-generated Code for Security Contextscited by 6
- 2024Defending Code Language Models against Backdoor Attacks with Deceptive Cross-Entropy Losscited by 5
- 2025Benchmarking AI Models in Software Engineering: A Review, Search Tool, and Unified Approach for Elevating Benchmark Qualitycited by 4
- 2022A Survey on Artificial Intelligence for Source Code: A Dialogue Systems Perspectivecited by 3
- 2023Enhancing Robustness of AI Offensive Code Generators via Data Augmentationcited by 3
- 2024Enhancing AI-based Generation of Software Exploits with Contextual Informationcited by 3
- 2022Can NMT Understand Me? Towards Perturbation-based Evaluation of NMT Models for Code Generationcited by 2
- 2024Optimizing AI-Assisted Code Generationcited by 2
- 2022Can We Generate Shellcodes via Natural Language? An Empirical Studycited by 0
- 2026Willing but Unable: Separating Refusal from Capability in Code LLMs via Abliterationcited by 0
- 2026Willing but Unable: Separating Refusal from Capability in Code LLMs via Abliteration3 Jun 2026
- 2025Benchmarking AI Models in Software Engineering: A Review, Search Tool, and Unified Approach for Elevating Benchmark Quality7 Mar 2025
- 2024Optimizing AI-Assisted Code Generation14 Dec 2024
- 2024Enhancing AI-based Generation of Software Exploits with Contextual Information5 Aug 2024
- 2024Defending Code Language Models against Backdoor Attacks with Deceptive Cross-Entropy Loss12 Jul 2024
- 2023Automating the Correctness Assessment of AI-generated Code for Security Contexts28 Oct 2023
- 2023Vulnerabilities in AI Code Generators: Exploring Targeted Data Poisoning Attacks4 Aug 2023
- 2023Enhancing Robustness of AI Offensive Code Generators via Data Augmentation8 Jun 2023
- 2022Who Evaluates the Evaluators? On Automatic Metrics for Assessing AI-based Offensive Code Generators12 Dec 2022
- 2022Can NMT Understand Me? Towards Perturbation-based Evaluation of NMT Models for Code Generation29 Mar 2022
- 2022A Survey on Artificial Intelligence for Source Code: A Dialogue Systems Perspective10 Feb 2022
- 2022Can We Generate Shellcodes via Natural Language? An Empirical Study8 Feb 2022