VEX-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Assessing Exploitability of Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
The software supply chain has become an increasingly exposed attack surface because of its reliance on intricate yet fragile dependencies. Existing defenses such as GitHub Dependabot often raise many false alerts because their coarse-grained matching cannot determine whether a vulnerable dependency is actually exploitable. Security analysts typically spend substantial time assessing vulnerability exploitability case by case. Recent LLM agents have emerged as promising candidates for this task given their advanced capabilities in coding and cybersecurity, yet no existing benchmark evaluates them on it. Prior benchmarks target zero-day settings, where agents detect and exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities. In contrast, software supply chain security focuses on how known vulnerabilities in upstream dependencies affect downstream projects. This requires agents to reason across repositories and determine whether an upstream vulnerability is exploitable in the downstream project. To address this gap, we introduce VEX-Bench, the first benchmark for evaluating LLM agents' ability to assess the exploitability of software supply chain vulnerabilities. It contains 75 real-world cases mined from GitHub and labeled by security experts, covering Python, Java, and Go. We evaluate nine models across three agent harnesses. While GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 reach approximately 80% F1 on binary vulnerability-status classification, only GPT-5.5 surpasses 70% macro-F1 on fine-grained justification classification. This gap highlights the challenge of moving beyond binary exploitability assessment to identifying fine-grained exploitability reasons. Code and data: https://github.com/steven1518/vex-bench
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.
Builds on
9 of 41 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 8
- 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
- 2026GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineeringcited by 502
- 2023Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Modelscited by 175
- 2025CyberGym: Evaluating AI Agents' Real-World Cybersecurity Capabilities at Scalecited by 71
- 2026Reward Hacking Benchmark: Measuring Exploits in LLM Agents with Tool Usecited by 25
- 2022Automating Dependency Updates in Practice: An Exploratory Study on GitHub Dependabotcited by 12
- 2026RewardHackingAgents: Benchmarking Evaluation Integrity for LLM ML-Engineering Agentscited by 10
- 2021A Comparative Study of Vulnerability Reporting by Software Composition Analysis Toolscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Benchmarking LLMs and LLM-based Agents in Practical Vulnerability Detection for Code Repositories
- 2025CVE-Bench: A Benchmark for AI Agents' Ability to Exploit Real-World Web Application Vulnerabilities
- 2026MOSAIC-Bench: Measuring Compositional Vulnerability Induction in Coding Agents
- 2025From LLMs to Agents: A Comparative Evaluation of LLMs and LLM-based Agents in Security Patch Detection
- 2026TitanCA: Lessons from Orchestrating LLM Agents to Discover 100+ CVEs
- 2026Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems
- 2026ExploitBench: A Capability Ladder Benchmark for LLM Cybersecurity Agents
- 2025Let the Trial Begin: A Mock-Court Approach to Vulnerability Detection using LLM-Based Agents