mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Empirical Software Engineering TerraProbe: A Layered-Oracle Framework for Detecting Deceptive Fixes in LLM-Assisted Terraform

arXiv 2606.26590 ↗First posted 25 Jun 2026cs.LG cs.CRcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Security misconfigurations in Terraform Infrastructure-as-Code are a growing risk in cloud deployments, and large language models are increasingly used as automated repair agents. Existing evaluations often treat a repair as successful when the targeted static-analysis finding disappears, without checking planning validity, behavioral change, or security intent. This paper presents TerraProbe, a five-layer oracle framework for evaluating LLM-assisted Terraform security repair. We apply TerraProbe to 288 first-pass repairs generated by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet across 68 real-world TerraDS modules and 28 controlled injected-defect modules. The results show that targeted Checkov removal overstates repair success. Although targeted removal reaches 83.3 percent for the primary model, full-scanner cleanliness drops to 10.4 percent, Terraform planning succeeds for 39.6 percent, and plan comparison is reachable for 38.5 percent. Human adjudication further shows that 71.4 percent of plan-compared real-world repairs are deceptive fixes that pass automated checks while leaving the underlying vulnerability in place. This pattern is statistically indistinguishable across the three models, with deceptive-fix rates from 57.1 percent to 71.4 percent and pairwise Fisher exact p-values above 0.10. The paper introduces a four-dimensional taxonomy of deceptive fixes, validated with Cohen kappa of 0.78 and Krippendorff alpha of 0.76. IAM permission analysis confirms that wildcard Resource grants persist in all nine CKV2 AWS 11 deceptive-fix cases. TerraProbe contributes an evaluation methodology, a replication package, and the Multi-Layer Oracle Evaluation framework for distinguishing intent-aligned security repairs from scanner-passing false successes.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2026.

Builds on

7 of 43 references.

References · 7

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  2. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,391
  3. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
  4. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 399
  5. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 181
  6. 2023An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPTcited by 110
  7. 2018Ways of Applying Artificial Intelligence in Software Engineeringcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.