Overview
Production Readiness
0.4
Novelty Score
0.4
Cost Impact Score
0.2
Citation Count
6
Why It Matters For Business
SecQA gives a quick, domain-specific check of LLM security knowledge. Use it to benchmark models before deploying them on security tasks and to spot when open models need domain tuning or retrieval augmentation.
Summary TLDR
SecQA is a two-version, multiple-choice dataset built from a modern computer-security textbook and generated with GPT-4. It provides small dev/val splits and larger test splits (v1 test=110, v2 test=100) to measure LLM accuracy on security knowledge. Evaluations show GPT-3.5/GPT-4 score near 99% on v1 and ~98% on v2, while open-source models vary widely. Because questions were generated with GPT-4, benchmark leakage and limited challenge for top models are important caveats.
Problem Statement
There is no compact, security-focused multiple-choice benchmark to quickly measure how well LLMs understand computer security. Existing general benchmarks miss domain nuances. The paper aims to create a concise, textbook-based QA set to diagnose LLMs' security knowledge and compare models under 0-shot and 5-shot settings.
Main Contribution
Created SecQA, a focused multiple-choice dataset for computer security with two difficulty tiers (v1: foundational, v2: advanced).
Generated questions with GPT-4 via two custom GPT agents (Cyber Quizmaster and Cyber Quizmaster Pro) and hand-refined them.
Evaluated many popular LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama-2, Vicuna, Mistral, Zephyr) on SecQA in 0-shot and 5-shot settings and published accuracy tables.
Key Findings
GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 achieve near-perfect accuracy on SecQA v1 and very high on v2.
Open-source LLMs show large, inconsistent gaps versus closed models on security QA.
5-shot prompting can swing accuracy dramatically for some models.
SecQA is small and textbook-derived, with test sizes: v1 test=110, v2 test=100.
Dataset generation method risks benchmark leakage because GPT-4 produced the questions.
Results
Accuracy
Accuracy
Accuracy
Accuracy
Accuracy
Who Should Care
What To Try In 7 Days
Run SecQA v1 and v2 against candidate models to compare baseline security knowledge.
If open models score poorly, run small-scale fine-tuning or add a retrieval layer and re-evaluate.
Treat GPT-4 results cautiously; add held-out, human-written questions to test leakage.
Reproducibility
Data Available
Open Source Status
- partial
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
- Questions were generated by GPT-4 then refined; this can bias results for GPT-4-family models.
- Dataset is small: dev sets are tiny (5 examples each) and test sets are modest (110 and 100).
- Multiple-choice format favors recognition over open-ended reasoning or code-level skills.
- All items are textbook-derived, so real-world incident handling and adversarial scenarios are underrepresented.
When Not To Use
- When you need a large, robust benchmark for stress-testing model safety or adversarial resistance.
- When you need open-ended or hands-on security evaluation (e.g., exploit generation, detection pipelines).
- When evaluating possible leakage for models that may have been trained on GPT-4–produced content.
Failure Modes
- High scores from GPT-4 may reflect question familiarity, not true understanding.
- Few-shot prompts can both help and hurt model accuracy depending on model and examples.
- Open-source models show inconsistent scaling; results may not generalize across security subdomains.
Core Entities
Models
- GPT-3.5-Turbo
- GPT-4
- Llama-2-7B-Chat
- Llama-2-13B-Chat
- Vicuna-7B-v1.5
- Vicuna-13B-v1.5
- Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2
- Zephyr-7B-Beta
Metrics
- Accuracy
Datasets
- SecQA v1
- SecQA v2
Benchmarks
- SecQA
Context Entities
Datasets
- MMLU
- HELM
- BIG-bench