PBFuzz: Agentic Directed Fuzzing for PoV Generation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Proof-of-Vulnerability (PoV) input generation is a critical task in software security and supports downstream applications such as path generation and validation. Generating a PoV input requires solving two sets of constraints: (1) reachability constraints for reaching vulnerable code locations, and (2) triggering constraints for activating the target vulnerability. Existing approaches, including directed greybox fuzzing and LLM-assisted fuzzing, struggle to efficiently satisfy these constraints. This work presents an agentic method that mimics human experts. Human analysts iteratively study code to extract semantic reachability and triggering constraints, form hypotheses about PoV triggering strategies, encode them as test inputs, and refine their understanding using debugging feedback. We automate this process with an agentic directed fuzzing framework called PBFuzz. PBFuzz tackles four challenges in agentic PoV generation: autonomous code reasoning for semantic constraint extraction, custom program-analysis tools for targeted inference, persistent memory to avoid hypothesis drift, and property-based testing for efficient constraint solving while preserving input structure. Experiments on the Magma benchmark show strong results. PBFuzz triggered 57 vulnerabilities, surpassing all baselines, and uniquely triggered 17 vulnerabilities not exposed by existing fuzzers. PBFuzz achieved this within a 30-minute budget per target, while conventional approaches use 24 hours. Median time-to-exposure was 339 seconds for PBFuzz versus 8680 seconds for AFL++ with CmpLog, giving a 25.6x efficiency improvement with an API cost of 1.83 USD per vulnerability. In real-world application, PBFuzz reproduced three FFmpeg 1-day CVEs that had no public PoVs.
Key facts. Cited by 4 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 26 of its 125 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Dec 2025.
Builds on
26 of 125 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025PoCo: Agentic Proof-of-Concept Exploit Generation for Smart Contracts4 Nov
- 2025A Survey on Agentic Security: Applications, Threats and Defenses7 Oct
Other references · 24
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failurescited by 133
- 2025OptimalThinkingBench: Evaluating Over and Underthinking in LLMscited by 35
- 2023Can Large Language Models Write Good Property-Based Tests?cited by 31
- 2023Prompt Fuzzing for Fuzz Driver Generationcited by 27
- 2025KNighter: Transforming Static Analysis with LLM-Synthesized Checkerscited by 24
- 2018Angora: Efficient Fuzzing by Principled Searchcited by 15
- 2025ELFuzz: Efficient Input Generation via LLM-driven Synthesis Over Fuzzer Spacecited by 15
- 2024LLAMAFUZZ: Large Language Model Enhanced Greybox Fuzzingcited by 14
- 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzingcited by 9
- 2025ATLANTIS: AI-driven Threat Localization, Analysis, and Triage Intelligence Systemcited by 9
12 more
- 2025Agentic Property-Based Testing: Finding Bugs Across the Python Ecosystemcited by 8
- 2025Cottontail: Large Language Model-Driven Concolic Execution for Highly Structured Test Input Generationcited by 6
- 2020UNIFUZZ: A Holistic and Pragmatic Metrics-Driven Platform for Evaluating Fuzzerscited by 5
- 2022MC2: Rigorous and Efficient Directed Greybox Fuzzingcited by 5
- 2023ODDFUZZ: Discovering Java Deserialization Vulnerabilities via Structure-Aware Directed Greybox Fuzzingcited by 4
- 2025HarnessAgent: Scaling Automatic Fuzzing Harness Construction with Tool-Augmented LLM Pipelinescited by 4
- 2019SAVIOR: Towards Bug-Driven Hybrid Testingcited by 3
- 2023autofz: Automated Fuzzer Composition at Runtimecited by 3
- 2025Large Language Model Powered Symbolic Executioncited by 2
- 2025Fuzzing: Randomness? Reasoning! Efficient Directed Fuzzing via Large Language Modelscited by 2
- 2020The Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives of Directed Greybox Fuzzingcited by 1
- 2023HyperGo: Probability-based Directed Hybrid Fuzzingcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Patch-to-PoC: A Systematic Study of Agentic LLM Systems for Linux Kernel N-Day Reproductioncited by 7
- 2026Execution-State-Aware LLM Reasoning for Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generationcited by 3
- 2026To Defend Against Cyber Attacks, We Must Teach AI Agents to Hackcited by 1
- 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
- 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
- 2026To Defend Against Cyber Attacks, We Must Teach AI Agents to Hack1 Feb 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Agentic Fuzzing: Opportunities and Challenges
- 2026Neuro-Symbolic Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation with Open-Weight Models ↗
- 2026SeedSmith: LLM-Driven Seed Synthesis for Directed Fuzzing ↗
- 2026Code-Augur: Agentic Vulnerability Detection via Specification Inference
- 2026DIG: Oracle-Guided Directed Input Generation for One-Day Vulnerabilities ↗
- 2026FuzzingBrain V2: A Multi-Agent LLM System for Automated Vulnerability Discovery and Reproduction
- 2025FaultLine: Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation Using LLM Agents
- 2026No Attack Required: Semantic Fuzzing for Specification Violations in Agent Skills