Incident-Data Robustness Analysis of the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2026): How a Community-Expert Ranking Holds Up Against a Large-Scale LLM Incident Corpus

Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.

Originaltext der Quelle (nicht übersetzt) – die deutsche Zusammenfassung findest du im Tab „Kurzfassung".

arXiv:2608.19266v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications ranks the risks that a community of security practitioners judges most important. We ask a narrower question: checked against the record of real incidents, does that expert ranking agree with the data? We assembled a large-scale corpus of LLM-security incidents (7,714 snapshotted and 6,639 labeled against the 20-entry taxonomy) drawn from CVE, GHSA, OSV, and AIAAIC, and derived an incident-based ranking with a Bayesian measurement-error model that corrects each category's count for classifier precision and recall. The 2026 candidate list blends the two signals at fixed weights, 0.75 on the expert vote and 0.25 on the data, so the corpus corrects the consensus without overturning it. The agreement between the two rankings is weak: Cohen's $\kappa \approx 0.20$, with a 90% interval that crosses zero. The expert ranking is nonetheless robust. A pre-registered bake-off of four frontier classifiers returns no winner. None beats the incidence floor's balanced accuracy of 0.863. A ground-truth check leaves the floor's ordering (Spearman $\rho = 0.918$ against held-out truth) in place. This is an exploratory analysis by two working-group members, not the official OWASP release, and it does not supersede the official list or process.

Vollständiger Originalartikel ↗

• Betroffenheit im eigenen Stack prüfen: Versionen/Komponenten abgleichen.
• Originalquelle / Hersteller-Advisory lesen: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19266
• Verfügbaren Patch oder Workaround einspielen und dokumentieren.