Is "Knowing It's Malicious Enough?" Evaluating LLMs for Fine-Grained Malware Behavior Auditing

Abstract

Automated malware classifiers achieve strong detection performance, but auditing requires more than flagging a sample: analysts must explain malicious behaviors and justify them with code evidence. Traditional signature-based methods and learning-based XAI often fail to provide such support in a human-interpretable form. Large Language Models (LLMs) appear promising, yet their reliability for malware auditing remains unclear. Evaluation faces three challenges: (1) the lack of human-written behavioral ground truth; (2) real-world codebases that exceed current context limits; and (3) the lack of reliable mechanisms to verify whether generated claims are grounded in code evidence. These obstacles make benchmarking difficult and leave model capabilities and failure modes opaque. We introduce MalEval, a diagnostic framework for measuring the capability boundaries of LLMs in malware auditing. MalEval pairs real-world application codebases with expert-written audit reports to provide fine-grained behavior-level ground truth. It compresses large codebases into behavior-relevant program contexts through a context-driven intermediate representation that preserves call relations. Expert reports and model outputs are mapped, via constrained reasoning, into structured evidence chains linking code-level facts to high-level behaviors in a shared space. MalEval decomposes auditing into four stage-wise tasks, enabling each intermediate judgment to be verified under limited context windows. We evaluate seven LLMs and find that they rely on surface cues rather than verifiable evidence, struggle to compose dispersed facts into coherent attack chains, and are highly sensitive to context formulation. These findings shift attention from isolated outputs to reliable LLM and agentic workflows for malware auditing. MalEval is publicly available at https://github.com/ZhengXR930/MalEval.git