How Effective Are They? Exploring Large Language Model Based Fuzz Driver Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-based (Large Language Model) fuzz driver generation is a promising research area. Unlike traditional program analysis-based method, this text-based approach is more general and capable of harnessing a variety of API usage information, resulting in code that is friendly for human readers. However, there is still a lack of understanding regarding the fundamental issues on this direction, such as its effectiveness and potential challenges. To bridge this gap, we conducted the first in-depth study targeting the important issues of using LLMs to generate effective fuzz drivers. Our study features a curated dataset with 86 fuzz driver generation questions from 30 widely-used C projects. Six prompting strategies are designed and tested across five state-of-the-art LLMs with five different temperature settings. In total, our study evaluated 736,430 generated fuzz drivers, with 0.85 billion token costs (8,000+ charged tokens). Additionally, we compared the LLM-generated drivers against those utilized in industry, conducting extensive fuzzing experiments (3.75 CPU-year). Our study uncovered that: - While LLM-based fuzz driver generation is a promising direction, it still encounters several obstacles towards practical applications; - LLMs face difficulties in generating effective fuzz drivers for APIs with intricate specifics. Three featured design choices of prompt strategies can be beneficial: issuing repeat queries, querying with examples, and employing an iterative querying process; - While LLM-generated drivers can yield fuzzing outcomes that are on par with those used in the industry, there are substantial opportunities for enhancement, such as extending contained API usage, or integrating semantic oracles to facilitate logical bug detection. Our insights have been implemented to improve the OSS-Fuzz-Gen project, facilitating practical fuzz driver generation in industry.
Key facts. Cited by 21 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 4; 2025: 9; 2026: 6.
21 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Uglycited by 380
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Taskscited by 69
- 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insightscited by 44
- 2024When Fuzzing Meets LLMs: Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 8
- 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzingcited by 8
- 2024AutoPT: How Far Are We from the End2End Automated Web Penetration Testing?cited by 7
- 2023Testing learning-enabled cyber-physical systems with Large-Language Models: A Formal Approachcited by 5
- 2024Open-Source AI-based SE Tools: Opportunities and Challenges of Collaborative Software Learningcited by 4
- 2025HarnessAgent: Scaling Automatic Fuzzing Harness Construction with Tool-Augmented LLM Pipelinescited by 4
- 2024Generative transformations and patterns in LLM-native approaches for software verification and falsificationcited by 2
- 2025FalseCrashReducer: Mitigating False Positive Crashes in OSS-Fuzz-Gen Using Agentic AIcited by 2
- 2025deepSURF: Detecting Memory Safety Vulnerabilities in Rust Through Fuzzing LLM-Augmented Harnessescited by 1
9 more
- 2025Towards Reliable LLM-Driven Fuzz Testing: Vision and Road Aheadcited by 0
- 2025Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniquescited by 0
- 2025Orion: Fuzzing Workflow Automationcited by 0
- 2026Coverage-Guided Multi-Agent Harness Generation for Java Library Fuzzingcited by 0
- 2026AgentExecutor: Partial Code Execution via Agentic Context Generationcited by 0
- 2026LLM-Assisted Dynamic Threat Analysis for Attacker-Reachable Software Weaknesses in Autonomous Vehiclescited by 0
- 2026AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigationcited by 0
- 2026CIT-CAD: Constraint Intent Tree-based CAD Code Generation and Verificationcited by 0
- 2026SyzHarness: Patch-Based Kernel Bug Reproduction with LLM-Synthesized Fuzzing Harnessescited by 0
- 2026SyzHarness: Patch-Based Kernel Bug Reproduction with LLM-Synthesized Fuzzing Harnesses20 Sep 2026
- 2026CIT-CAD: Constraint Intent Tree-based CAD Code Generation and Verification7 Sep 2026
- 2026AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation26 Aug 2026
- 2026LLM-Assisted Dynamic Threat Analysis for Attacker-Reachable Software Weaknesses in Autonomous Vehicles13 Aug 2026
- 2026AgentExecutor: Partial Code Execution via Agentic Context Generation6 Aug 2026
- 2026Coverage-Guided Multi-Agent Harness Generation for Java Library Fuzzing9 Mar 2026
- 2025HarnessAgent: Scaling Automatic Fuzzing Harness Construction with Tool-Augmented LLM Pipelines3 Dec 2025
- 2025FalseCrashReducer: Mitigating False Positive Crashes in OSS-Fuzz-Gen Using Agentic AI2 Oct 2025
- 2025Orion: Fuzzing Workflow Automation18 Sep 2025
- 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzing29 Aug 2025
- 2025Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques18 Jul 2025
- 2025deepSURF: Detecting Memory Safety Vulnerabilities in Rust Through Fuzzing LLM-Augmented Harnesses18 Jun 2025
9 more
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks13 Jun 2025
- 2025Towards Reliable LLM-Driven Fuzz Testing: Vision and Road Ahead2 Mar 2025
- 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insights10 Feb 2025
- 2024AutoPT: How Far Are We from the End2End Automated Web Penetration Testing?2 Nov 2024
- 2024When Fuzzing Meets LLMs: Challenges and Opportunities25 Apr 2024
- 2024Generative transformations and patterns in LLM-native approaches for software verification and falsification14 Apr 2024
- 2024Open-Source AI-based SE Tools: Opportunities and Challenges of Collaborative Software Learning9 Apr 2024
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly4 Dec 2023
- 2023Testing learning-enabled cyber-physical systems with Large-Language Models: A Formal Approach13 Nov 2023
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Taskscited by 69
- 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzingcited by 8
- 2025HarnessAgent: Scaling Automatic Fuzzing Harness Construction with Tool-Augmented LLM Pipelinescited by 4
- 2025FalseCrashReducer: Mitigating False Positive Crashes in OSS-Fuzz-Gen Using Agentic AIcited by 2
- 2026Coverage-Guided Multi-Agent Harness Generation for Java Library Fuzzingcited by 0
- 2026AgentExecutor: Partial Code Execution via Agentic Context Generationcited by 0
- 2026AgentExecutor: Partial Code Execution via Agentic Context Generation6 Aug 2026
- 2026Coverage-Guided Multi-Agent Harness Generation for Java Library Fuzzing9 Mar 2026
- 2025HarnessAgent: Scaling Automatic Fuzzing Harness Construction with Tool-Augmented LLM Pipelines3 Dec 2025
- 2025FalseCrashReducer: Mitigating False Positive Crashes in OSS-Fuzz-Gen Using Agentic AI2 Oct 2025
- 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzing29 Aug 2025
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks13 Jun 2025
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Uglycited by 380
- 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insightscited by 44
- 2024When Fuzzing Meets LLMs: Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 8
- 2024AutoPT: How Far Are We from the End2End Automated Web Penetration Testing?cited by 7
- 2023Testing learning-enabled cyber-physical systems with Large-Language Models: A Formal Approachcited by 5
- 2024Open-Source AI-based SE Tools: Opportunities and Challenges of Collaborative Software Learningcited by 4
- 2024Generative transformations and patterns in LLM-native approaches for software verification and falsificationcited by 2
- 2025deepSURF: Detecting Memory Safety Vulnerabilities in Rust Through Fuzzing LLM-Augmented Harnessescited by 1
- 2025Towards Reliable LLM-Driven Fuzz Testing: Vision and Road Aheadcited by 0
- 2025Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniquescited by 0
- 2025Orion: Fuzzing Workflow Automationcited by 0
- 2026LLM-Assisted Dynamic Threat Analysis for Attacker-Reachable Software Weaknesses in Autonomous Vehiclescited by 0
12 most cited of 14 All 14 (JSON)
- 2026SyzHarness: Patch-Based Kernel Bug Reproduction with LLM-Synthesized Fuzzing Harnesses20 Sep 2026
- 2026CIT-CAD: Constraint Intent Tree-based CAD Code Generation and Verification7 Sep 2026
- 2026LLM-Assisted Dynamic Threat Analysis for Attacker-Reachable Software Weaknesses in Autonomous Vehicles13 Aug 2026
- 2025Orion: Fuzzing Workflow Automation18 Sep 2025
- 2025Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques18 Jul 2025
- 2025deepSURF: Detecting Memory Safety Vulnerabilities in Rust Through Fuzzing LLM-Augmented Harnesses18 Jun 2025
- 2025Towards Reliable LLM-Driven Fuzz Testing: Vision and Road Ahead2 Mar 2025
- 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insights10 Feb 2025
- 2024AutoPT: How Far Are We from the End2End Automated Web Penetration Testing?2 Nov 2024
- 2024When Fuzzing Meets LLMs: Challenges and Opportunities25 Apr 2024
- 2024Generative transformations and patterns in LLM-native approaches for software verification and falsification14 Apr 2024
- 2024Open-Source AI-based SE Tools: Opportunities and Challenges of Collaborative Software Learning9 Apr 2024
12 newest of 14 All 14 (JSON)