arXiv (All)
open access
Forgeable Confirmation in Automated Computer Security Testing: Deterministic Rules versus AI Judges
AI is increasingly used to automate computer security testing, and the tools must decide for themselves whether an attack succeeded. A finding that a deterministic rule confirms by observation is reported as fact, whereas one that an LLM judges exploitable is treated as an opinion. We ask whether th
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Forgeable Confirmation in Automated Computer Security Testing: Deterministic Rules versus AI Judges#1028597
- Trust, but Validate the Instrument: Auditing AI-Generated RTL Verification Plans on Authored Security-Regression Proxies#1014892
- Trust, but Validate the Instrument: Auditing AI-Generated RTL Verification Plans on Authored Security-Regression Proxies#978364
- Bias in the Loop: Auditing LLM-as-a-Judge for Software Engineering#120615
- Computer Science Conferences Should Require Nonrepudiable Experimental Results#925152
Record · ID 1050383
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive