<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Llm-Code-Security on CuraSec</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/llm-code-security/</link><description>Recent content in Llm-Code-Security on CuraSec</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 21:42:19 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/llm-code-security/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>RiskyPy: Benchmark Pipeline for LLM Code Generation Security Eval</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-11-02-riskypy-toward-model-calibrated-prompt-generation-for-joint/</link><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 21:42:19 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-11-02-riskypy-toward-model-calibrated-prompt-generation-for-joint/</guid><description>&lt;ul>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Engineer — Learn:&lt;/strong> Findings that only 5-10% of LLM-generated Python is free of Bandit security findings should recalibrate confidence in AI-assisted coding; engineers relying on LLMs for code generation should ensure SAST tooling (e.g., Bandit, Semgrep) is part of the review pipeline for AI-authored code.&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>SOC/IR — Skip&lt;/strong>&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Leader — Learn:&lt;/strong> The benchmark data showing pervasive security flaws in LLM-generated code provides evidence useful when building or justifying an AI-assisted development policy, but no immediate action is required.&lt;/li>
&lt;/ul></description></item></channel></rss>