Cited by 98Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionInformation and Cyber Security

Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: A Survey of Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques

Open access
Jaffal, Niveen O., Alkhanafseh, Mohammed, Mohaisen, David·2025·AI

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming cybersecurity by enabling intelligent, adaptive, and automated approaches to threat detection, vulnerability assessment, and incident response. With their advanced language understanding and contextual reasoning, LLMs surpass traditional methods in tackling challenges across domains such as the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, and hardware security. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of LLM applications in cybersecurity, focusing on two core areas: (1) the integration of LLMs into key cybersecurity domains, and (2) the vulnerabilities of LLMs themselves, along with mitigation strategies. By synthesizing recent advancements and identifying key limitations, this work offers practical insights and strategic recommendations for leveraging LLMs to build secure, scalable, and future-ready cyber defense systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ai6090216

Cites

140 of 183 references verified0 citation errors · 43 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Yao et al. [20] survey LLM applications across eight cybersecurity domains, including a brief subsection on IoT, but treat agents only tangentially.

    “Yao et al. [20] survey LLM applications across eight cybersecurity domains, including a brief subsection on IoT, but treat agents only tangentially.”

    From Agentic AI and Large Language Models for Autonomous IoT Cybersecurity: A Systematic Survey, Taxonomy, and Research Roadmap (2026) · cites this paper as [20]

    Section 4 says this survey covers eight cybersecurity domains, and §4.8 covers IoT security. The paper mentions an IDS-Agent in §4.8 and multiple LLM agents under “Emerging Multimodal and Autonomous Defenses,” without making agents a main survey domain. The attribution to “Yao et al.” is incorrect for the cited Jaffal et al. paper; the substantive description otherwise broadly fits. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Agents inherit and amplify LLM weaknesses-hallucination, prompt sensitivity, contextual drift-and propagate them across longer decision chains.

    “Agents inherit and amplify the weaknesses of the underlying LLM-hallucination, prompt sensitivity, and contextual drift-and propagate them across longer decision chains [20,21].”

    From Agentic AI and Large Language Models for Autonomous IoT Cybersecurity: A Systematic Survey, Taxonomy, and Research Roadmap (2026) · cites this paper as [20]

    Section 5 identifies hallucinations as an LLM risk, and §5.3 describes how prompts can manipulate LLM outputs. Section 4.5.2 also notes contextual limitations. The paper does not establish that agents amplify these weaknesses or propagate them across longer decision chains; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cybersecurity environments impose distinct and high reliability, auditability, and reproducibility requirements because incorrect or unverifiable automatic actions are commonly found.

    “This approach is justified by the recent findings showing that cybersecurity environments impose distinct and high reliability, auditability, and reproducibility requirements because incorrect or unverifiable automatic actions are commonly found [9], [10], [11].”

    From The Evolution of Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: From Single LLM Reasoners to Multi-Agent Systems and Autonomous Pipelines (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Ethical and Privacy Considerations section calls for LLM-driven security decisions to be transparent, traceable, and open to independent scrutiny. Sections 4.2.8 and 4.5.1 also describe false positives and errors in specific automated security tasks. The paper does not establish a reproducibility requirement or say that incorrect or unverifiable automatic actions are commonly found across cybersecurity environments. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. He, Z.; Li, Z.; Yang, S.; Qiao, A.; Zhang, X.; Luo, X.; Chen, T. Large Language Models for Blockchain Security: A Systematic Literature Review. arXiv 2024. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Liu, R.; Wang, Y.; Xu, H.; Qin, Z.; Liu, Y.; Cao, Z. Malicious URL Detection via Pretrained Language Model Guided Multi-Level Feature Attention Network. arXiv 2023. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Meng, X.; Srivastava, A.; Arunachalam, A.; Ray, A.; Silva, P.H.; Psiakis, R.; Makris, Y.; Basu, K. Unlocking Hardware Security Assurance: The Potential of LLMs. arXiv 2023. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Malul, E.; Meidan, Y.; Mimran, D.; Elovici, Y.; Shabtai, A. GenKubeSec: LLM-Based Kubernetes Misconfiguration Detection, Localization, Reasoning, and Remediation. arXiv 2024. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Nguyen, T.N. OllaBench: Evaluating LLMs' Reasoning for Human-Centric Interdependent Cybersecurity. arXiv 2024. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Charalambous, Y.; Tihanyi, N.; Jain, R.; Sun, Y.; Ferrag, M.A.; Cordeiro, L.C. Dataset for: A New Era in Software Security: Towards Self-Healing Software via Large Language Models and Formal Verification, Version 1; Zenodo: Genève, Switzerland, 2023. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Nurgaliyev, A. Analysis of Reverse Engineering and Cyber Assaults. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, 2023.
  8. Kadhe, S.R.; Ahmed, F.; Wei, D.; Baracaldo, N.; Padhi, I. Split, Unlearn, Merge: Leveraging Data Attributes for More Effective Unlearning in LLMs. arXiv 2024. [CrossRef] 165. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jaffal, N. O., Alkhanafseh, M., & Mohaisen, D.
Affiliations
  • Birzeit University (PS)
  • Department of Computer Science, Birzeit University, Birzeit P.O. Box 14, Palestine
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
Venue
AI
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-09-05
Volume
6
Issue
9
Pages
216
ISSN
2673-2688 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414013482
Cited by
69
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 5
FWCI
27.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
Keywords
large language models, cybersecurity applications, LLM vulnerabilities, threat detection, vulnerability assessment, incident response, Internet of Things security, blockchain security, hardware security

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review