VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Seyedreza Mohseni
dblp:354/6053
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0006-6081-9896ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Systems and software security · 77% Malware analysis · 23% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
code generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Can LLMs Obfuscate Code? A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models into Assembly Code Obfuscation · AAAI 2025 |
Systems and software security › software protection
code obfuscation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Can LLMs Obfuscate Code? A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models into Assembly Code Obfuscation · AAAI 2025 |
Malware analysis › malware detection evasion
antivirus evasion |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Can LLMs Obfuscate Code? A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models into Assembly Code Obfuscation · AAAI 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Can LLMs Obfuscate Code? A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models into Assembly Code ObfuscationabstractMalware authors often employ code obfuscations to make their malware harder to detect. Existing tools for generating obfuscated code often require access to the original source code (e.g., C++ or Java), and adding new obfuscations is a non-trivial, labor-intensive process. In this study, we ask the following question: Can Large Language Models (LLMs) potentially generate a new obfuscated assembly code? If so, this poses a risk to anti-virus engines and potentially increases the flexibility of attackers to create new obfuscation patterns. We answer this in the affirmative by developing the MetamorphASM benchmark comprising MetamorphASM Dataset (MAD) along with three code obfuscation techniques: dead code, register substitution, and control flow change. The MetamorphASM systematically evaluates the ability of LLMs to generate and analyze obfuscated code using MAD, which contains 328,200 obfuscated assembly code samples. We release this dataset and analyze the success rate of various LLMs (e.g., GPT-3.5/4, GPT-4o-mini, Starcoder, CodeGemma, CodeLlama, CodeT5, and LLaMA 3.1) in generating obfuscated assembly code. The evaluation was performed using established information-theoretic metrics and manual human review to ensure correctness and provide the foundation for researchers to study and develop remediations to this risk. Seyedreza Mohseni, Seyedali Mohammadi, Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Gerald Ndawula, Sriram Vema, Edward Raff, Manas Gaur |
AAAI | 1 |