LLM-Assisted Dynamic Threat Analysis for Attacker-Reachable Software Weaknesses in Autonomous Vehicles
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous vehicles depend on large safety-critical software stacks, where weaknesses reachable from adversarial inputs may affect steering, braking, or other control decisions. Static analysis can identify candidate sites, but dynamically confirming exploitability requires executable test artifacts that are difficult to construct manually. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can automate this process for Autoware, an open-source autonomous-driving stack. We perform compiler-precise static analysis across 185 packages, identifying 1,375 decision rules, 2,274 validation checks, and 482 input-to-safety-output flows, from which we derive a weakness taxonomy and sample 740 reachable sites. Two local open-weight LLMs, a no-static-context ablation, and a naive-template baseline generate 3,700 artifact sets, which are compiled against the real build under sanitizers, repaired through compiler-in-the-loop feedback, and fuzzed when executable. The main result is a build-integration failure taxonomy showing that 80% of first-shot compilation failures arise from dependency wiring rather than program logic. The reasoning model compiled 64% of harnesses on the first attempt, compared with 6% for the code-specialized model. Repair achieved full object-compileability for the reasoning model only through extensive stubbing; fewer than half of its harnesses reached the fuzzer, and all 37 observed crashes originated in stubbed code rather than Autoware. No candidate weakness was dynamically confirmed within budget. These results show that build integration, not candidate generation or fuzzing, is the primary barrier to reliable LLM-assisted dynamic analysis of full autonomous-vehicle software stacks.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.
Builds on
17 of 38 references.
References · 17
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 399
- 2019A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologiescited by 379
- 2022Robot Operating System 2: Design, Architecture, and Uses In The Wildcited by 199
- 2019Adversarial Sensor Attack on LiDAR-based Perception in Autonomous Drivingcited by 152
- 2017On a Formal Model of Safe and Scalable Self-driving Carscited by 131
- 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilitiescited by 128
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Fuzzers: Fuzzing Deep-Learning Libraries via Large Language Modelscited by 103
- 2023Fuzz4All: Universal Fuzzing with Large Language Modelscited by 88
- 2020Dirty Road Can Attack: Security of Deep Learning based Automated Lane Centering under Physical-World Attackcited by 64
- 2018The Art, Science, and Engineering of Fuzzing: A Surveycited by 62
- 2021Pylot: A Modular Platform for Exploring Latency-Accuracy Tradeoffs in Autonomous Vehiclescited by 33
5 more
- 2023How Effective Are They? Exploring Large Language Model Based Fuzz Driver Generationcited by 21
- 2020Waymo's Safety Methodologies and Safety Readiness Determinationscited by 16
- 2025Open-Source Autonomous Driving Software Platforms: Comparison of Autoware and Apollocited by 6
- 2025Security Vulnerabilities in Software Supply Chain for Autonomous Vehiclescited by 4
- 2018Towards an open standard for assessing the severity of robot security vulnerabilities, the Robot Vulnerability Scoring System (RVSS)cited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Large Language Models in Code Co-generation for Safe Autonomous Vehicles
- 2026Evaluating Open-Weight LLMs for Generating Structured Threat Information for Autonomous Vehicle Vulnerabilities
- 2025Trust Me, I Know This Function: Hijacking LLM Static Analysis using Bias
- 2026Beyond Static Guarantees: Measuring the Static-Pass Dynamic-Fail Gap in Security-Sensitive and LLM-Generated Python Code
- 2026OpenAnt: LLM-Powered Vulnerability Discovery Through Code Decomposition, Adversarial Verification, and Dynamic Testing
- 2026LLM-enabled Applications Require System-Level Threat Monitoring
- 2026CyberLLM: A Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Autonomous Detection and Guarded Response in Automotive Cybersecurity
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks