This paper presents a large-scale empirical study using the AIDev dataset to systematically characterize security code smells in agent-generated pull requests (PRs), finding that human collaborators are responsible for introducing 67.6% of genuine leaked secrets within these agent-assisted workflows.
Abstract
The increasing adoption of autonomous coding agents accelerates software development but also introduces scoped security risks within high-impact file paths that can outpace traditional human review capacity. While prior research has primarily evaluated these systems in terms of functional correctness and productivity, this paper presents a large-scale empirical study using the AIDev dataset to systematically characterize security code smells in agent-generated pull requests (PRs). Through a combination of a validated LLM-as-a-judge framework and manual qualitative analysis, we identify and classify security misconfigurations across 16,112 file changes spanning 4,022 pull requests. Our results reveal that 38.9% of agent-generated PRs contain at least one security smell, with supply chain integrity issues accounting for 82.3% of all detected security smells. Furthermore, hard-coded credentials constitute 99.6% of all critical-severity security smells. Crucially, we find that human collaborators are responsible for introducing 67.6% of genuine leaked secrets within these agent-assisted workflows, while existing automated and human review processes fail to detect 81.1% of these credentials prior to integration. These findings highlight substantial security risks in agent-assisted software development workflows and suggest a potential reduction in developer vigilance. They also underscore the urgent need for context-aware security guardrails implemented directly at the point of human-AI collaboration.
This evidence-centered structured survey synthesizes representative work available through May 31, 2026 across software engineering tasks, software security tasks, adaptation mechanisms, artifact granularity, and evaluation design and introduces an assurance framework that separates functional correctness, security, operational reliability, evidence provenance, and agent authority.
Wei Lin, Tao Zhou, Zhaofei Xie et al.· 0 citations
It is proved that current AI coding assistants do not produce secure-by-default applications, dictating that enterprise deployments must transition from single-shot prompt engineering to continuous, standards-driven verification pipelines.
An Information Flow Graph monitor is introduced that analyzes structural security regressions using control-flow and data-flow graph diffs alongside raw code diffs and suggests that untrained structural monitors provide a practical and auditable path toward democratizing deployment safety for organizations seeking trustworthy adoption of advanced AI agents.
Preeti Ravindra, Rahul Tiwari, Vincent Wolowski· arXiv.org· 1 citation· ⚡1
The risk is not tied to any particular model but rather to the task category, and organizations should ask not which tool to trust, but instead whether LLM-generated automation code should be deployed without review.
Shanna M. Kahn, John D. Hastings· arXiv.org· 0 citations
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has rapidly established itself as a standard interface for enabling LLM-based agents to interact with external tools and services. As MCP servers are increasingly entrusted with security-sensitive operations, understanding their real-world risks has become critical. In practice, due to the absence of large-scale runtime MCP servers, such understanding largely relies on security scanners applied to a small number of cases, yet the reliability of these assessments remains unclear. In this study, we revisit how MCP security is measured. We present MCPZoo, the largest collection of MCP servers for dynamic analysis to date. MCPZoo is constructed through a multi-agent framework for transforming in-the-wild static repositories into dynamic services. The framework emulates how human experts build, diagnose, and iteratively repair deployment and runtime defects by combining environment inference with feedback-driven refinement. To ensure practical interactivity at runtime, the servers are validated via real protocol interactions. As a result, MCPZoo contains 64,611 unique MCP servers (113,927 in total), with more than 37,288 supporting dynamic analysis. Leveraging MCPZoo, we conduct the first ecosystem-scale measurement of MCP servers and the scanners that analyze them. While existing scanners report that 96.89% of servers are risky, we find that these signals are unreliable. In particular, manual validation shows that less than 50% of sampled alerts are true positives, and scanner outputs exhibit clear inconsistency across scanners. Overall, MCPZoo enables large-scale, reproducible measurement of MCP server security and exposes limitations of current scanning practices. We further release a public query interface to support practical risk assessment of MCP servers.
Pei Chen, Baichao An, Mengying Wu et al.· 0 citations
Stealth, the discipline of achieving an objective without revealing your presence, capabilities, or collected intelligence, is what separates sophisticated operators from detectable ones. Elite security researchers and advanced persistent threats achieve their objectives unnoticed; autonomous agents increasingly inherit the same offensive tasks, but do they inherit the tradecraft? We introduce StealthBench,a benchmark that measures operational stealth in autonomous offensive-security agents across six operational security (OPSEC) dimensions. We extract 11 hand-verified OPSEC incidents from real bug-bounty and red-team trajectories, expanded into 14 dockerized task scenarios, where agents, despite finding real vulnerabilities, committed stealth failures inconsistent with standard operational tradecraft: embedding credentials in public uploads, deleting production resources to prove access, force-adding uninvolved users to demonstrate a race condition. We evaluate agent trajectories using a 3-model large language model (LLM) judge panel with majority-vote aggregation, measuring safe success rate (solved and stealthy), Stealth@Solve (tradecraft quality among successful solves), and reckless solve rate (solved but cover blown). Our results show that no model exceeds 54% safe success rate (the compound metric requiring both task completion and stealth), confirming that OPSEC failures are systematic across model families. We release StealthBench as a public benchmark to support both the development of stealth-aware agents and automated OPSEC monitoring for autonomous offensive-security deployments. The interactive leaderboard, evaluation harness, and dataset are available at https://stealthbench.com.
Ads Dawson, A. Wood· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
