analiza aiqbench
This study establishes a critical human baseline for LLM-generated Infrastructure-as-Code, revealing that models consistently produce artifacts with significantly higher vulnerability density than human engineers across various complexity levels. The research further demonstrates that vendor-specific extended thinking APIs offer measurable security improvements over standard generation or prompted chain-of-thought methods without proportionally increasing token costs. By addressing the flaw of comparing model output solely to raw counts rather than size-matched human work, this benchmark provides a realistic metric for assessing the actual security risks of deploying AI-authored infrastructure.
Compared to What? A Human-Anchored Security Benchmark for LLM-Generated Infrastructure-as-Code
arXiv:2608.28021v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used to author Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC), where a single insecure default can be deployed directly into production. Prior evaluations report raw vulnerability counts for model-generated IaC, but without a human baseline they cannot determine whether models are actually worse than engineers. We introduce GenIaC-SecBench, a benchmark of 100 deployment scenarios stratified by architectural complexity, evaluated across 12 model configurations from four vendors, producing 1,196 IaC artifacts scanned by three independent policy engines (Checkov, Trivy, KICS). Critically, we also scan 634 human-authored IaC templates with the same toolchain, providing the first size-matched human security baseline. Vulnerability density is strongly inverse to artifact size (Spearman $\rho = -0.55$, $p < 10^{-77}$), meaning unmatched comparisons measure size rather than security. When matched on declared-resource count, all model configurations fall within 3.21x--3.87x the human vulnerability density, with the gap widening for simpler tasks (4.9x at one resource, 1.4x at twenty or more). We decompose reasoning into standard generation, prompt-engineered chain-of-thought, and vendor extended-thinking APIs. Vendor extended thinking significantly outperforms prompted chain-of-thought ($-12.0\%$, $p = 0.0013$), while prompted chain-of-thought is indistinguishable from standard generation ($-1.3\%$, n.s.). Token instrumentation shows extended thinking uses under 1\% of the output budget, explaining its bounded effect. Two negative results also emerge: deployability does not correlate with vulnerability ($r = 0.158$, $p = 0.625$), and classical complete-case Friedman testing is infeasible for realistic benchmark designs, motivating the Skillings-Mack statistic. All code, data, and regeneration scripts are released.
Title:Compared to What? A Human-Anchored Security Benchmark for LLM-Generated Infrastructure-as-Code
Abstract:Large language models are increasingly used to author Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC), where a single insecure default can be deployed directly into production. Prior evaluations report raw vulnerability counts for model-generated IaC, but without a human baseline they cannot determine whether models are actually worse than engineers. We introduce GenIaC-SecBench, a benchmark of 100 deployment scenarios stratified by architectural complexity, evaluated across 12 model configurations from four vendors, producing 1,196 IaC artifacts scanned by three independent policy engines (Checkov, Trivy, KICS). Critically, we also scan 634 human-authored IaC templates with the same toolchain, providing the first size-matched human security baseline. Vulnerability density is strongly inverse to artifact size (Spearman $\rho = -0.55$, $p < 10^{-77}$), meaning unmatched comparisons measure size rather than security. When matched on declared-resource count, all model configurations fall within 3.21x--3.87x the human vulnerability density, with the gap widening for simpler tasks (4.9x at one resource, 1.4x at twenty or more). We decompose reasoning into standard generation, prompt-engineered chain-of-thought, and vendor extended-thinking APIs. Vendor extended thinking significantly outperforms prompted chain-of-thought ($-12.0\%$, $p = 0.0013$), while prompted chain-of-thought is indistinguishable from standard generation ($-1.3\%$, n.s.). Token instrumentation shows extended thinking uses under 1\% of the output budget, explaining its bounded effect. Two negative results also emerge: deployability does not correlate with vulnerability ($r = 0.158$, $p = 0.625$), and classical complete-case Friedman testing is infeasible for realistic benchmark designs, motivating the Skillings-Mack statistic. All code, data, and regeneration scripts are released.
12 pages, 11 figures, 9 tables. Code: this https URL Data: this https URL
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
D.2.4; D.2.9; K.6.5; I.2.7
arXiv:2608.28021 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.28021v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.28021 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 373 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026