Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates Representation-Confusion Attacks in LLM-assisted reverse engineering (RARE), where binaries mislead analysis by misrepresenting data. Through an extensive study involving 11,520 calls and testing on 20 new programs, the authors demonstrate that without proper authorization controls, models can propose unsafe actions based on adversarial inputs. The introduction of RARE-Bench and RARE-Guard significantly mitigates these risks, validating claims more accurately and preventing unsafe proposals in 100% of clean cases while effectively managing adversarial scenarios.
Adversarial binaries can manipulate LLMs into making unsafe proposals, but robust authorization controls can effectively prevent this exploitation.
LLM-assisted reverse-engineering (RE) systems analyze strings, decompiler output, and tool reports derived from ttacker-controlled binaries. A binary can make data look like instructions or records from one origin look like independent evidence. We call such failures Representation-Confusion Attacks in Reverse Engineering (RARE): the pipeline promotes a correctly extracted observation to instruction authority, claim-validating evidence, or trusted analysis state without the authority or support that role requires. RARE-Bench measures these failures with behavior-checked clean and adversarial binaries. After an exploratory 11,520-call study, we test RARE-Guard's authorization and evidence controls on 20 new programs and two models. Without runtime controls, the models propose a planted unsafe action in 35/40 adversarial cases and 0/40 clean cases. When binary-derived content is shown only as data (Data-Only rendering), they still make 15 unsafe proposals. Tool Authorization denies all 15 and authorizes all 40 matched analyst requests. On identical report drafts, Support Gate validates 23/40 false claims by counting records from one origin separately. Provenance Gate groups those records before counting support, validates 0/40 false claims, and retains all 40 supported claims. We then instrument Ghidra, r2pipe, and angr on 16 further programs. In a preselected eight-program subset, no single-tool draft reaches Support Gate's validation threshold for the false claim. In fused drafts across all 16 programs, Support Gate validates 32/32 false claims. Provenance Gate prevents validation of all 32 and retains all 32 supported claims. A deterministic renderer prevents downgraded claims from reappearing in the final report. Binary-derived content may therefore guide analysis without gaining authority over tools, and views from several tools do not necessarily provide independent evidence.
