A Systematic Study of Code Obfuscation Against LLM-based Vulnerability Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for code vulnerability detection, their reliability and robustness across diverse vulnerability types have become a pressing concern. In traditional adversarial settings, code obfuscation has long been used as a general strategy to bypass auditing tools, preserving exploitability without tampering with the tools themselves. Numerous efforts have explored obfuscation methods and tools, yet their capabilities differ in terms of supported techniques, granularity, and programming languages, making it difficult to systematically assess their impact on LLM-based vulnerability detection. To address this gap, we provide a structured systematization of obfuscation techniques and evaluate them under a unified framework. Specifically, we categorize existing obfuscation methods into three major classes (layout, data flow, and control flow) covering 11 subcategories and 19 concrete techniques. We implement these techniques across four programming languages (Solidity, C, C++, and Python) using a consistent LLM-driven approach, and evaluate their effects on 15 LLMs spanning four model families (DeepSeek, OpenAI, Qwen, and LLaMA), as well as on two coding agents (GitHub Copilot and Codex). Our findings reveal both positive and negative impacts of code obfuscation on LLM-based vulnerability detection, highlighting conditions under which obfuscation leads to performance improvements or degradations. We further analyze these outcomes with respect to vulnerability characteristics, code properties, and model attributes. Finally, we outline several open problems and propose future directions to enhance the robustness of LLMs for real-world vulnerability detection.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2025.
Builds on
38 of 80 references.
References · 38
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,139
- 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,310
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,203
- 2020GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flowcited by 609
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
- 2024Vulnerability Detection with Code Language Models: How Far Are We?cited by 139
- 2023DiverseVul: A New Vulnerable Source Code Dataset for Deep Learning Based Vulnerability Detectioncited by 102
- 2022Natural Attack for Pre-trained Models of Codecited by 75
- 2024Vul-RAG: Enhancing LLM-based Vulnerability Detection via Knowledge-level RAGcited by 68
26 more
- 2019Adversarial Examples for Models of Codecited by 63
- 2023Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 59
- 2022CodeAttack: Code-Based Adversarial Attacks for Pre-trained Programming Language Modelscited by 53
- 2022VulBERTa: Simplified Source Code Pre-Training for Vulnerability Detectioncited by 51
- 2023Data Quality for Software Vulnerability Datasetscited by 51
- 2023Prompt-Enhanced Software Vulnerability Detection Using ChatGPTcited by 51
- 2022An Empirical Study of Deep Learning Models for Vulnerability Detectioncited by 46
- 2024Large Language Model for Vulnerability Detection: Emerging Results and Future Directionscited by 45
- 2023ChatGPT for Vulnerability Detection, Classification, and Repair: How Far Are We?cited by 44
- 2024An LLM-Assisted Easy-to-Trigger Backdoor Attack on Code Completion Models: Injecting Disguised Vulnerabilities against Strong Detectioncited by 40
- 2022Transformer-Based Language Models for Software Vulnerability Detectioncited by 39
- 2019Empirical Review of Automated Analysis Tools on 47,587 Ethereum Smart Contractscited by 36
- 2023Uncovering the Limits of Machine Learning for Automatic Vulnerability Detectioncited by 30
- 2024VulEval: Towards Repository-Level Evaluation of Software Vulnerability Detectioncited by 19
- 2024Comparison of Static Application Security Testing Tools and Large Language Models for Repo-level Vulnerability Detectioncited by 18
- 2023AIBugHunter: A Practical Tool for Predicting, Classifying and Repairing Software Vulnerabilitiescited by 17
- 2024Pre-training by Predicting Program Dependencies for Vulnerability Analysis Taskscited by 17
- 2023Distinguishing Look-Alike Innocent and Vulnerable Code by Subtle Semantic Representation Learning and Explanationcited by 11
- 2024On the Effectiveness of Function-Level Vulnerability Detectors for Inter-Procedural Vulnerabilitiescited by 10
- 2023Code Difference Guided Adversarial Example Generation for Deep Code Modelscited by 9
- 2024Are Latent Vulnerabilities Hidden Gems for Software Vulnerability Prediction? An Empirical Studycited by 9
- 2023When Less is Enough: Positive and Unlabeled Learning Model for Vulnerability Detectioncited by 8
- 2023An Extensive Study on Adversarial Attack against Pre-trained Models of Codecited by 8
- 2023Do Language Models Learn Semantics of Code? A Case Study in Vulnerability Detectioncited by 4
- 2023A Black-Box Attack on Code Models via Representation Nearest Neighbor Searchcited by 3
- 2024Pros and Cons! Evaluating ChatGPT on Software Vulnerabilitycited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026Detecting Data Poisoning in Code Generation LLMs via Black-Box, Vulnerability-Oriented Scanningcited by 0
- 2026Poisoned Identifiers Survive LLM Deobfuscation: A Case Study on Claude Opus 4.6cited by 0
- 2026Probing the Prefill: Detecting Code Vulnerabilities via Latent Activationscited by 0
- 2026Cheap to Hypothesize, Costly to Verify: The Defense Surface of Agentic Vulnerability Discoverycited by 0
- 2026Natural Code Transformation Confuses Agents in Vulnerability Analysiscited by 0
- 2026Natural Code Transformation Confuses Agents in Vulnerability Analysis9 Oct 2026
- 2026Cheap to Hypothesize, Costly to Verify: The Defense Surface of Agentic Vulnerability Discovery28 Sep 2026
- 2026Probing the Prefill: Detecting Code Vulnerabilities via Latent Activations17 Aug 2026
- 2026Poisoned Identifiers Survive LLM Deobfuscation: A Case Study on Claude Opus 4.65 Apr 2026
- 2026Detecting Data Poisoning in Code Generation LLMs via Black-Box, Vulnerability-Oriented Scanning17 Mar 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025"Digital Camouflage": The LLVM Challenge in LLM-Based Malware Detection
- 2026An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Based Approaches for Code Vulnerability Detection: RAG, SFT, and Dual-Agent Systems
- 2024From Vulnerabilities to Remediation: A Systematic Literature Review of LLMs in Code Security
- 2025Trust Me, I Know This Function: Hijacking LLM Static Analysis using Bias
- 2026OpenAnt: LLM-Powered Vulnerability Discovery Through Code Decomposition, Adversarial Verification, and Dynamic Testing
- 2024Towards Explainable Vulnerability Detection with Large Language Models
- 2024Software Vulnerability and Functionality Assessment using LLMs
- 2026Exploring Automated Vulnerability Identification in JavaScript Code Using Large Language Models