Large Language Models for Validating Network Protocol Parsers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Network protocol parsers are essential for enabling correct and secure communication between devices. Bugs in these parsers can introduce critical vulnerabilities, including memory corruption, information leakage, and denial-of-service attacks. An intuitive way to assess parser correctness is to compare the implementation with its official protocol standard. However, this comparison is challenging because protocol standards are typically written in natural language, whereas implementations are in source code. Existing methods like model checking, fuzzing, and differential testing have been used to find parsing bugs, but they either require significant manual effort or ignore the protocol standards, limiting their ability to detect semantic violations. To enable more automated validation of parser implementations against protocol standards, we propose PARVAL, a multi-agent framework built on large language models (LLMs). PARVAL leverages the capabilities of LLMs to understand both natural language and code. It transforms both protocol standards and their implementations into a unified intermediate representation, referred to as format specifications, and performs a differential comparison to uncover inconsistencies. We evaluate PARVAL on the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol. Our experiments demonstrate that PARVAL successfully identifies inconsistencies between the implementation and its RFC standard, achieving a low false positive rate of 5.6%. PARVAL uncovers seven unique bugs, including five previously unknown issues.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Apr 2025.
Builds on
25 of 54 references.
References · 25
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 799
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder-V2: Breaking the Barrier of Closed-Source Models in Code Intelligencecited by 331
- 2024AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvementcited by 278
- 2022Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproductioncited by 111
- 2024Beyond Functional Correctness: Exploring Hallucinations in LLM-Generated Codecited by 107
- 2022ReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Modelscited by 103
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Fuzzers: Fuzzing Deep-Learning Libraries via Large Language Modelscited by 103
- 2024IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 103
13 more
- 2023Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program Repaircited by 85
- 2024Evaluating Language Models for Efficient Code Generationcited by 73
- 2024Code-Aware Prompting: A study of Coverage Guided Test Generation in Regression Setting using LLMcited by 64
- 2023How Effective Are Neural Networks for Fixing Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 52
- 2025RepoAudit: An Autonomous LLM-Agent for Repository-Level Code Auditingcited by 49
- 2022An Empirical Study of Deep Learning Models for Vulnerability Detectioncited by 46
- 2024Reasoning Runtime Behavior of a Program with LLM: How Far Are We?cited by 45
- 2024CYCLE: Learning to Self-Refine the Code Generationcited by 42
- 2023WhiteFox: White-Box Compiler Fuzzing Empowered by Large Language Modelscited by 37
- 2024LLMDFA: Analyzing Dataflow in Code with Large Language Modelscited by 22
- 2021Prognosis: Closed-Box Analysis of Network Protocol Implementationscited by 7
- 20243DGen: AI-Assisted Generation of Provably Correct Binary Format Parserscited by 6
- 2023Lifting Network Protocol Implementation to Precise Format Specification with Security Applicationscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2025TAI3: Testing Agent Integrity in Interpreting User Intentcited by 9
- 2025RFCAudit: An LLM Agent for Functional Bug Detection in Network Protocolscited by 7
- 2025Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rustcited by 4
- 2026Identifying Adversary Tactics and Techniques in Malware Binaries with an LLM Agentcited by 2
- 2026CORVUS: Context Optimization and Reduction Via Underlying Synchronization for LLM Coding Agentscited by 2
- 2026CORVUS: Context Optimization and Reduction Via Underlying Synchronization for LLM Coding Agents20 Jul 2026
- 2026Identifying Adversary Tactics and Techniques in Malware Binaries with an LLM Agent6 Feb 2026
- 2025TAI3: Testing Agent Integrity in Interpreting User Intent9 Jun 2025
- 2025RFCAudit: An LLM Agent for Functional Bug Detection in Network Protocols31 May 2025
- 2025Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust7 May 2025