Bertalan Borsos

Richard A. Dubniczky, Bertalan Borsos, Tihanyi Norbert

The widespread use of preprint repositories such as arXiv has accelerated the communication of scientific results but also introduced overlooked security risks. Beyond PDFs, these platforms provide unrestricted access to original source materials, including LaTeX sources, auxiliary code, figures, and embedded comments. In the absence of sanitization, submissions may disclose sensitive information that adversaries can harvest using open-source intelligence. In this work, we present the first large-scale security audit of preprint archives, analyzing more than 1.2 TB of source data from 100,000 arXiv submissions. We introduce LaTeXpOsEd, a four-stage framework that integrates pattern matching, logical filtering, traditional harvesting techniques, and large language models (LLMs) to uncover hidden disclosures within non-referenced files and LaTeX comments. To evaluate LLMs' secret-detection capabilities, we introduce LLMSec-DB, a benchmark on which we tested 25 state-of-the-art models. Our analysis uncovered thousands of PII leaks, GPS-tagged EXIF files, publicly available Google Drive and Dropbox folders, editable private SharePoint links, exposed GitHub and Google credentials, and cloud API keys. We also uncovered confidential author communications, internal disagreements, and conference submission credentials, exposing information that poses serious reputational risks to both researchers and institutions. We urge the research community and repository operators to take immediate action to close these hidden security gaps. To support open science, we release all scripts and methods from this study but withhold sensitive findings that could be misused, in line with ethical principles. The source code and related material are available at the project website https://github.com/LaTeXpOsEd

Norbert Tihanyi, Tamas Bisztray, Richard A. Dubniczky et al.

As machine intelligence evolves, the need to test and compare the problem-solving abilities of different AI models grows. However, current benchmarks are often simplistic, allowing models to perform uniformly well and making it difficult to distinguish their capabilities. Additionally, benchmarks typically rely on static question-answer pairs that the models might memorize or guess. To address these limitations, we introduce Dynamic Intelligence Assessment (DIA), a novel methodology for testing AI models using dynamic question templates and improved metrics across multiple disciplines such as mathematics, cryptography, cybersecurity, and computer science. The accompanying dataset, DIA-Bench, contains a diverse collection of challenge templates with mutable parameters presented in various formats, including text, PDFs, compiled binaries, visual puzzles, and CTF-style cybersecurity challenges. Our framework introduces four new metrics to assess a model's reliability and confidence across multiple attempts. These metrics revealed that even simple questions are frequently answered incorrectly when posed in varying forms, highlighting significant gaps in models' reliability. Notably, API models like GPT-4o often overestimated their mathematical capabilities, while ChatGPT-4o demonstrated better performance due to effective tool usage. In self-assessment, OpenAI's o1-mini proved to have the best judgement on what tasks it should attempt to solve. We evaluated 25 state-of-the-art LLMs using DIA-Bench, showing that current models struggle with complex tasks and often display unexpectedly low confidence, even with simpler questions. The DIA framework sets a new standard for assessing not only problem-solving but also a model's adaptive intelligence and ability to assess its limitations. The dataset is publicly available on the project's page: https://github.com/DIA-Bench.