Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Akhil Vyas

dblp:230/8559 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 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 · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security
exploitation
0.912025
BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems · NeurIPS 2025
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.912025
BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems · NeurIPS 2025
Systems and software security
vulnerability patching
0.912025
BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems · NeurIPS 2025
Systems and software security › vulnerability management
bug bounty programs
0.312025
BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems · NeurIPS 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

large language model agent · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems
abstract
AI agents have the potential to significantly alter the cybersecurity landscape. Here, we introduce the first framework to capture offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities in evolving real-world systems. Instantiating this framework with BountyBench, we set up 25 systems with complex, real-world codebases. To capture the vulnerability lifecycle, we define three task types: Detect (detecting a new vulnerability), Exploit (exploiting a given vulnerability), and Patch (patching a given vulnerability). For Detect, we construct a new success indicator, which is general across vulnerability types and provides localized evaluation. We manually set up the environment for each system, including installing packages, setting up server(s), and hydrating database(s). We add 40 bug bounties, which are vulnerabilities with monetary awards from \\$10 to \\$30,485, covering 9 of the OWASP Top 10 Risks. To modulate task difficulty, we devise a new strategy based on information to guide detection, interpolating from identifying a zero day to exploiting a given vulnerability. We evaluate 10 agents: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI with o3-high and o4-mini, and custom agents with o3-high, GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview, Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking, Qwen3 235B A22B, Llama 4 Maverick, and DeepSeek-R1. Given up to three attempts, the top-performing agents are OpenAI Codex CLI: o3-high (12.5% on Detect, mapping to \\$3,720; 90% on Patch, mapping to \\$14,152), Custom Agent with Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking (67.5% on Exploit), and OpenAI Codex CLI: o4-mini (90% on Patch, mapping to \\$14,422). OpenAI Codex CLI: o3-high, OpenAI Codex CLI: o4-mini, and Claude Code are more capable at defense, achieving higher Patch scores of 90%, 90%, and 87.5%, compared to Exploit scores of 47.5%, 32.5%, and 57.5% respectively; while the custom agents are relatively balanced between offense and defense, achieving Exploit scores of 17.5-67.5% and Patch scores of 25-60%.
Andy K. Zhang, Joey Ji, Celeste Menders, Riya Dulepet, Thomas Qin, Ron Yifeng Wang, Junrong Wu, Kyleen Liao, Jinghan Hu, Sara Hong, Nardos Demilew, Shivatmica Murgai, Jason Tran, Nishka Kacheria, Ethan Ho, Denis Liu, Lauren McLane, Olivia Bruvik, Dai-Rong Han, Seungwoo Kim, Akhil Vyas, Cuiyuanxiu Chen, Weiran Xu, Jonathan Z. Ye, Prerit Choudhary, Siddharth M. Bhatia, Vikram Sivashankar, Yuxuan Bao, Dawn Song, Dan Boneh, Daniel E. Ho, Percy Liang
NeurIPS22
2019 Security, Privacy and Safety Risk Assessment for Virtual Reality Learning Environment Applications
abstract
Social Virtual Reality based Learning Environments (VRLEs) such as vSocial render instructional content in a three-dimensional immersive computer experience for training youth with learning impediments. There are limited prior works that explored attack vulnerability in VR technology, and hence there is a need for systematic frameworks to quantify risks corresponding to security, privacy, and safety (SPS) threats. The SPS threats can adversely impact the educational user experience and hinder delivery of VRLE content. In this paper, we propose a novel risk assessment framework that utilizes attack trees to calculate a risk score for varied VRLE threats with rate and duration of threats as inputs. We compare the impact of a well-constructed attack tree with an adhoc attack tree to study the trade-offs between overheads in managing attack trees, and the cost of risk mitigation when vulnerabilities are identified. We use a vSocial VRLE testbed in a case study to showcase the effectiveness of our framework and demonstrate how a suitable attack tree formalism can result in a more safer, privacy-preserving and secure VRLE system.
Aniket Gulhane, Akhil Vyas, Reshmi Mitra, Roland Oruche, Gabriela Hoefer, Samaikya Valluripally, Prasad Calyam, Khaza Anuarul Hoque
CCNC2