Evaluating Large Language Models for Symbolic Security Protocol Analysis

arXiv:2607.20712v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Security protocol verification relies on formal tools such as ProVerif and OFMC. This study evaluates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform comparable analysis. We test GPT and DeepSeek in chat and reasoning modes over three runs on 130 obfuscated AnB/AnBx protocols covering 388 security goals, scored against ProVerif and OFMC. Chat models reach 69 to 81% recall at precision below 31%. Reasoning models reverse this trade-off, reaching 66.5% precision for GPT and 45.4% for DeepSeek, but detect just over half the attacks. DeepSeek's two modes share one underlying model, so the comparison isolates reasoning itself, which raises precision from 27.2% to 45.4%. The GPT contrast spans a model-version change and is only suggestive. All models perform worst on authentication goals: reasoning models detect well under half of injective and non-injective agreement attacks, whereas chat models over-flag them at low precision. Confidentiality is the exception, with F1 up to 95.7% in reasoning mode. Verdicts are unstable across runs, identical on 89.7% of goals for GPT but 74.0% for DeepSeek. Self-reported confidence is uniformly high yet shows no meaningful correlation with correctness. On this benchmark LLMs do not match formal verification, but may serve, at best, as pre-screening filters.

Abstract:Security protocol verification relies on formal tools such as ProVerif and OFMC. This study evaluates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform comparable analysis. We test GPT and DeepSeek in chat and reasoning modes over three runs on 130 obfuscated AnB/AnBx protocols covering 388 security goals, scored against ProVerif and OFMC. Chat models reach 69 to 81% recall at precision below 31%. Reasoning models reverse this trade-off, reaching 66.5% precision for GPT and 45.4% for DeepSeek, but detect just over half the attacks. DeepSeek's two modes share one underlying model, so the comparison isolates reasoning itself, which raises precision from 27.2% to 45.4%. The GPT contrast spans a model-version change and is only suggestive. All models perform worst on authentication goals: reasoning models detect well under half of injective and non-injective agreement attacks, whereas chat models over-flag them at low precision. Confidentiality is the exception, with F1 up to 95.7% in reasoning mode. Verdicts are unstable across runs, identical on 89.7% of goals for GPT but 74.0% for DeepSeek. Self-reported confidence is uniformly high yet shows no meaningful correlation with correctness. On this benchmark LLMs do not match formal verification, but may serve, at best, as pre-screening filters.

Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2607.20712 [cs.CR]

(or arXiv:2607.20712v1 [cs.CR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20712 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

calibration_pooled_chat.csv

calibration_pooled_deepseek.csv

calibration_pooled_gpt.csv

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.

analiza aiqbench

Evaluating Large Language Models for Symbolic Security Protocol Analysis

Subiecte conexe