FaultLine: Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation Using LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite the critical threat posed by software security vulnerabilities, reports are often incomplete, lacking the proof-of-vulnerability (PoV) tests needed to validate fixes and prevent regressions. These tests are crucial not only for ensuring patches work, but also for helping developers understand how vulnerabilities can be exploited. Generating PoV tests is a challenging problem, requiring reasoning about the flow of control and data through deeply nested levels of a program. We present FaultLine, an LLM agent workflow that uses a set of carefully designed reasoning steps, inspired by aspects of traditional static and dynamic program analysis, to automatically generate PoV test cases. Given a software project with an accompanying vulnerability report, FaultLine 1) traces the flow of an input from an externally accessible API ("source") to the "sink" corresponding to the vulnerability, 2) reasons about the conditions that an input must satisfy in order to traverse the branch conditions encountered along the flow, and 3) uses this reasoning to generate a PoV test case in a feedback-driven loop. FaultLine does not use language-specific static or dynamic analysis components, which enables it to be used across programming languages. To evaluate FaultLine, we collate a challenging multi-lingual dataset of 100 known vulnerabilities in Java, C and C++ projects. On this dataset, FaultLine is able to generate PoV tests for 16 projects, compared to just 9 for CodeAct 2.1, a popular state-of-the-art open-source agentic framework. Thus, FaultLine represents a 77% relative improvement over the state of the art. Our findings suggest that hierarchical reasoning can enhance the performance of LLM agents on PoV test generation, but the problem in general remains challenging. We make our code and dataset publicly available in the hope that it will spur further research in this area.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2025.
Builds on
13 of 36 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2025CVE-Bench: A Benchmark for AI Agents' Ability to Exploit Real-World Web Application Vulnerabilities21 Mar
- 2024EnIGMA: Interactive Tools Substantially Assist LM Agents in Finding Security Vulnerabilities24 Sep
- 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilities2 Jun
- 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilities11 Apr
Other references · 9
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agentscited by 1,002
- 2024Executable Code Actions Elicit Better LLM Agentscited by 564
- 2023Large Language Models for Code: Security Hardening and Adversarial Testingcited by 155
- 2024Vulnerability Detection with Code Language Models: How Far Are We?cited by 139
- 2024IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 103
- 2024TDD-Bench Verified: Can LLMs Generate Tests for Issues Before They Get Resolved?cited by 34
- 2023Evaluating Diverse Large Language Models for Automatic and General Bug Reproductioncited by 12
- 2025PoCGen: Generating Proof-of-Concept Exploits for Vulnerabilities in Npm Packagescited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 11.
12 papers.
- 2026SEC-bench Pro: Can Language Models Solve Long-Horizon Software Security Tasks?cited by 9
- 2026Patch-to-PoC: A Systematic Study of Agentic LLM Systems for Linux Kernel N-Day Reproductioncited by 7
- 2026Human oversight of agentic systems in practice: Examining the oversight work, challenges, and heuristics of developers using software agentscited by 6
- 2026AnyPoC: Universal Proof-of-Concept Test Generation for Scalable LLM-Based Bug Detectioncited by 4
- 2026Execution-State-Aware LLM Reasoning for Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generationcited by 3
- 2026Program Analysis Guided LLM Agent for Proof-of-Concept Generationcited by 2
- 2026PoC-Adapt: Semantic-Aware Automated Vulnerability Reproduction with LLM Multi-Agents and Reinforcement Learning-Driven Adaptive Policycited by 1
- 2025SoK: Measuring What Matters for Closed-Loop Security Agentscited by 0
- 2026A Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Exploit Generation with Constraint-Guided Comprehension and Reflectioncited by 0
- 2026Agentic Vulnerability Reasoning on COTS Binariescited by 0
- 2026From Runnable to Verifiable: An Independent Reproducibility Study of LLM/Agent-Driven Vulnerability Validation Artifactscited by 0
- 2026P2Patch: Exploit-Guided Vulnerability Repaircited by 0
- 2026P2Patch: Exploit-Guided Vulnerability Repair14 Oct 2026
- 2026From Runnable to Verifiable: An Independent Reproducibility Study of LLM/Agent-Driven Vulnerability Validation Artifacts10 Aug 2026
- 2026Human oversight of agentic systems in practice: Examining the oversight work, challenges, and heuristics of developers using software agents3 Jun 2026
- 2026SEC-bench Pro: Can Language Models Solve Long-Horizon Software Security Tasks?26 May 2026
- 2026Agentic Vulnerability Reasoning on COTS Binaries6 May 2026
- 2026AnyPoC: Universal Proof-of-Concept Test Generation for Scalable LLM-Based Bug Detection13 Apr 2026
- 2026Program Analysis Guided LLM Agent for Proof-of-Concept Generation8 Apr 2026
- 2026PoC-Adapt: Semantic-Aware Automated Vulnerability Reproduction with LLM Multi-Agents and Reinforcement Learning-Driven Adaptive Policy8 Apr 2026
- 2026A Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Exploit Generation with Constraint-Guided Comprehension and Reflection6 Apr 2026
- 2026Execution-State-Aware LLM Reasoning for Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation14 Feb 2026
- 2026Patch-to-PoC: A Systematic Study of Agentic LLM Systems for Linux Kernel N-Day Reproduction7 Feb 2026
- 2025SoK: Measuring What Matters for Closed-Loop Security Agents2 Oct 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Veritas: Grounding LLM Agents for Reliable Vulnerability Reasoning over Stripped Binaries
- 2026Generating Proof-of-Vulnerability Tests to Help Enhance the Security of Complex Software ↗
- 2026A Dual-Loop Agent Framework for Automated Vulnerability Reproduction
- 2024AutoSafeCoder: A Multi-Agent Framework for Securing LLM Code Generation through Static Analysis and Fuzz Testing
- 2024A Case Study of LLM for Automated Vulnerability Repair: Assessing Impact of Reasoning and Patch Validation Feedback
- 2025From Trace to Line: LLM Agent for Real-World OSS Vulnerability Localization
- 2025PBFuzz: Agentic Directed Fuzzing for PoV Generation
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks