Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Short answer: a small custom benchmark suggests that the tested models could identify several deliberately planted security flaws, but it does not establish that they can reliably audit real code. In a DEV Community post published October 1, 2026, LOI CHIANG HAO reports high scores across 12 tasks—and describes individual failures on path traversal, jailbreaks, and prompt injection. The available post does not provide the prompts, raw outputs, or scoring rules needed to reproduce those results, so treat them as the author’s findings, not an independent measure of LLM security-auditing ability.
What did the 12 tasks test?
The author grouped the tasks into three categories, with four scenarios in each. That mix matters: spotting a vulnerability in a short code example, identifying a risky infrastructure setting, and refusing an adversarial request are different capabilities.
Code vulnerabilities
- SQL injection: a Python query assembled with string formatting.
- Hardcoded credentials: AWS IAM secret keys embedded in code.
- Path traversal: a Flask file-download route using
os.path.join(BASE_DIR, filename)without adequately constraining the requested path. - Insecure deserialization: an endpoint passing unvalidated session data to
pickle.loads.
Cloud and infrastructure configuration
- Nginx open redirect: a redirect using the unvalidated value
$arg_url. - Firewall policy: an iptables
INPUT ACCEPTdefault policy that makes the stated database allow-rules redundant. - Over-permissive Lambda role: wildcard permissions in an IAM policy for an S3 read operation.
- Over-permissive Kubernetes role: a
ClusterRolegranting wildcard verbs and API groups to a read-only monitoring service.
Prompt injection and jailbreak resistance
- A DAN-style role-play prompt asking for phishing templates.
- Simulated tool use in which search data includes a
[SYSTEM OVERRIDE]instruction to reveal prompts. - A Base64-encoded malware request presented as an encoding study.
- A creative-writing request for working SQL injection vectors.
What scores did the author report?
The table reproduces LOI CHIANG HAO’s reported results in the October 1, 2026 DEV Community submission. Each category contains four tasks; the overall result is out of 12. These are the author’s figures, not independently verified benchmark results.
| Model label in the post | Overall | Code | Configuration | Jailbreak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen 3 Coder 480B | 91.67% (11/12) | 100% | 100% | 75% |
| Grok 4.20 Reasoning | 91.67% (11/12) | 100% | 100% | 75% |
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | 91.67% (11/12) | 75% | 100% | 100% |
| DeepSeek-R1 | 83.33% (10/12) | 100% | 100% | 50% |
| GPT-5.4 | 83.33% (10/12) | 100% | 100% | 50% |
| GLM-5 | 75.00% (9/12) | 75% | 100% | 50% |
The aggregate scores obscure differences between categories. For example, the author reports 100% on the configuration tasks for every listed model, while the jailbreak results range from 50% to 100%. A high total therefore does not mean a model performed equally well across all the tested behaviors.
#1 Best Overall
What failures did the post describe?
The author says Gemini 3.7 Flash missed the path-traversal issue, noting that joining a base directory with a user-supplied filename does not by itself prevent absolute paths or ../ segments from escaping the intended directory. This is the author’s account of that benchmark response, not a reproduced test.
The post also says GPT-5.4 failed the DAN-style role-play and Base64-bypass tasks, including decoding the malware payload and assisting with credential-extraction concepts. The author attributes indirect prompt-injection and fictional-framing failures to DeepSeek-R1. The accessible post does not include the model outputs for these cases, so readers cannot independently check the descriptions or the exact behavior that triggered a failed score.
Rank #2
More broadly, the author reports that all six models flagged the SQL injection, hardcoded-credential, and pickle-deserialization examples. That result applies to these particular examples and scoring rules; it does not show that the models would catch every instance of those vulnerability classes in a larger application.
How much confidence should you put in the benchmark?
The post says it used automated string assertions and negative-lookaround regular expressions, including an assert_not_contains_regex check, to prevent a response from passing merely because it refused while still containing a prohibited exploit payload. Text-based checks can make a small benchmark easier to score consistently, but they only measure what the prompts and assertions define. A valid security explanation may use unexpected wording, while unsafe or incomplete advice may evade a narrow pattern.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe accessible article does not provide the exact prompts, regular expressions, thresholds, false-positive checks, task-by-task outputs, benchmark code, or run settings. It also does not identify exact provider model snapshots. Without those materials, it is not possible to independently reproduce the scores, inspect borderline judgments, or determine how much the results depend on prompt wording and scoring design. The model names in the table should therefore be read as the author’s labels, not as fully specified, reproducible versions.
There is a further scope limit: 12 intentionally constructed scenarios are a useful stress test, but not a broad audit of a real codebase. The reported results do not establish coverage of other bug patterns, interactions between components, or whether a model can propose a safe patch and verify that it introduces no new flaw. Nor do they establish that a refusal score measures the security of a deployed system.
Rank #4
What does the cost claim establish?
The author describes Qwen 3 Coder 480B as a score-versus-cost leader and says it achieved a 91.67% pass rate at a fraction of commercial API costs. The post’s accessible material does not give a numerical cost, provider rate, token count, execution date, or underlying cost data. The claim is therefore qualitative; it cannot support a quantified price comparison or a lasting recommendation about which model is cheapest for security work.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What should a developer take away?
Use these findings as a reason to test models on your own review tasks—not as a substitute for a code-review process. The benchmark’s strongest reported area was its four configuration scenarios; its most variable area was jailbreak resistance. Neither result predicts performance on code or configurations unlike those examples.
Recommended Free Tools
- For any model-assisted review, inspect the finding against the relevant code and configuration rather than treating a pass rate as assurance.
- When evaluating a model for a specific workflow, test the kinds of files, frameworks, infrastructure rules, and adversarial inputs that workflow actually uses.
- For a meaningful comparison, keep the prompt and scoring criteria fixed, record the exact model snapshot and run settings, and retain outputs so failures can be reviewed.
- Assess proposed fixes separately from detection: recognizing a flaw does not demonstrate that a suggested patch is correct or safe.
Those checks are especially important here because the post proposes multi-turn escalation after an initial refusal, context-window overflow attacks, and patch verification as future work. They were not among the 12 reported tasks, so the submission makes no findings about them.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
