Academics nerds published a research paper a few days about LLM malware and their argument for a new classification of malware dubbed "Promptware".
X fucks up links a lot, they don't display properly, so the link to their academic paper will be in the post subsequent to this one.
As is tradition, their academic paper is just a bunch of goobers being all philosophical about shit and including a bunch of fancy pictures and graphs.
I unironically sat here and read most of this paper.
Is there argument valid?
Yes, but some of the examples provided are theoretical and have not existed in-the-wild (yet?). They do however provide real-life examples of LLM payloads which have been successful. I personally have not seen these techniques described, but they provided citations and they are indeed real.
I do malware stuff everyday (collecting, reverse engineering, development) and I have not seen any of the papers they reference. This paper has demonstrated, unironically, there is a gap right now between LLM research and malware research. In essence, we are at the point now where LLM research is now bleeding into malware research and malware nerds may have to pay more attention.
I am now a believer. LLM malware is indeed real and will become a thing. I give these academic nerds two (2) cat pictures for this interesting paper. This is the first academic paper I've read in awhile that I actually think isn't complete dog shit.
My main criticism however is they kind of butcher some malware terminology. For example, they incorrectly refer to some of this LLM malware stuff as Polymorphic, but this is not polymorphic ... unless we get really, really, really flexible with definition of polymorphic malware and we make it more akin to high-level class inheritance polymorphism. It doesn't really matter that much though because I understand what they're trying to convey.