mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

CESBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Cryptographic Engineering Security for IoT Devices

arXiv 2609.21344 ↗First posted 18 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

For Internet of Things (IoT) devices, a secure algorithm alone is not enough: an attacker with physical access can attack the implementation directly, and its flaws are hard to fix once deployed. Large language models (LLMs) are now used to build and analyze such implementations. LLM benchmarks exist for cryptography and general cybersecurity, but none covers cryptographic engineering. In this paper, we present CESBench, 380 expert-written items across six sub-domains of cryptographic engineering security for IoT devices: side-channel, fault injection, implementation, countermeasures, evaluation, and integration. Four task types target different competences: 209 multiple-choice items test recall, 67 judgment items require a security verdict and its justification, 63 scenario items require an engineering diagnosis, and 41 code tasks are graded by 572 test cases. To validate the benchmark, 11 open-weight and proprietary LLMs answer every item. Multiple-choice and code responses are scored automatically, and judgment and scenario responses by an LLM judge, whose scores are checked against a second judge from another model family and human re-scoring. Composite scores range from 54.4% to 83.6%. The top score on each task type is 98.6% for multiple choice, 95.1% for code, and 88.4% for scenario diagnosis, but only 58.8% for judgment. Across models, 88.5% of verdicts are correct, yet their justifications earn only 53.4% of the rubric marks. Multiple choice is near its ceiling for the strongest models and most code tasks are solved, whereas justifying a security verdict remains the weakest competence. The benchmark, prompts, and per-item results are public.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2026.

Builds on

19 of 42 references.

References · 19

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,492
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,205
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,876
  4. 2024CTIBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cyber Threat Intelligencecited by 61
  5. 2024SecBench: A Comprehensive Multi-Dimensional Benchmarking Dataset for LLMs in Cybersecuritycited by 21
  6. 2025CipherBank: Exploring the Boundary of LLM Reasoning Capabilities through Cryptography Challengescited by 11
  7. 2025Benchmarking Large Language Models for Cryptanalysis and Side-Channel Vulnerabilitiescited by 5
  8. 2026HardSecBench: Benchmarking the Security Awareness of LLMs for Hardware Code Generationcited by 5
  9. 2025Malware Detection at the Edge with Lightweight LLMs: A Performance Evaluationcited by 4
  10. 2025Evaluating Language Models For Threat Detection in IoT Security Logscited by 4
  11. 2025Securing LLM-Generated Embedded Firmware through AI Agent-Driven Validation and Patchingcited by 3
  12. 2026CREBench: Evaluating Large Language Models in Cryptographic Binary Reverse Engineeringcited by 3
7 more
  1. 2026HarmChip: Evaluating Hardware Security Centric LLM Safety via Jailbreak Benchmarkingcited by 3
  2. 2025Large Language Model-driven Security Assistant for Internet of Things via Chain-of-Thoughtcited by 2
  3. 2025AICrypto: Evaluating Cryptography Capabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2
  4. 2026CrypFormBench: Benchmarking Formal Analysis Capability of Large Language Models for Cryptographic Schemescited by 2
  5. 2025CryptoQA: A Large-scale Question-answering Dataset for AI-assisted Cryptographycited by 1
  6. 2026CyberCertBench: Evaluating LLMs in Cybersecurity Certification Knowledgecited by 1
  7. 2026CryptanalysisBench: Can LLMs do Cryptanalysis?cited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.