# Does Fixing Break Security? An Empirical Study of LLM Security Degradation > Source: > Published: 2026-08-16 20:09:22+00:00 # Computer Science > Software Engineering [Submitted on 13 Aug 2026] # Title:Does Fixing Break Security? An Empirical Study of Security Degradation in Iterative LLM-Driven Infrastructure-as-Code Repair [View PDF](/pdf/2608.13404) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.13404v1) Abstract:Background: Iterative feedback loops are the dominant paradigm for improving LLM-generated Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC): validators such as Checkov and terraform validate feed error signals back for successive repair attempts. Prior work reports cumulative-best metrics, which are non-decreasing by construction, so the raw per-iteration security trajectory has never been examined for IaC. Aims: We study security regression (a previously-passing CIS Benchmark check that fails after a repair iteration) to determine whether and how often iterative LLM repair degrades security while fixing other issues. Method: We analyze 5,968 scenario timelines from the IaC-Eval benchmark, each one scenario run through one configuration for up to 5 repair iterations. The 15 configurations (six model-specific RAG, nine model-aggregated non-RAG, three temperatures each) yield 4,440 iteration transitions with Checkov data on both sides. We track 30 individual CIS check IDs and classify root causes from code diffs, under two detection modes: standard (inclusive) and strict (exclusive check failures only). Results: Under standard detection, 13.8% of scenarios (24.8% of transitions) exhibit at least one regression. Under strict detection the rate falls to 3.3% of scenarios (5.2% of transitions), indicating most apparent regressions are multi-resource measurement artifacts. Resource restructuring (79.0%) is the dominant root cause. Regression transitions show 2.6x more code churn (Cohen's d=0.90) and 4.9x higher strict-mode check volatility (d=1.49). Of standard-mode regressions, 36.6% self-correct within an average of 1.2 iterations; iteration 3 is the optimal stopping point. Conclusions: Iterative IaC repair does introduce security regressions, but the conservative, defensible rate is about 3.3% of scenarios. Our findings motivate security-aware feedback-loop design and actionable iteration-budget guidance. ### References & Citations Loading... # Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer *(*[What is the Explorer?](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-bibliographic-explorer)) Connected Papers *(*[What is Connected Papers?](https://www.connectedpapers.com/about)) Litmaps *(*[What is Litmaps?](https://www.litmaps.co/)) scite Smart Citations *(*[What are Smart Citations?](https://www.scite.ai/))# Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv *(*[What is alphaXiv?](https://alphaxiv.org/)) CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers *(*[What is CatalyzeX?](https://www.catalyzex.com)) DagsHub *(*[What is DagsHub?](https://dagshub.com/)) Gotit.pub *(*[What is GotitPub?](http://gotit.pub/faq)) Hugging Face *(*[What is Huggingface?](https://huggingface.co/huggingface)) ScienceCast *(*[What is ScienceCast?](https://sciencecast.org/welcome))# Demos # Recommenders and Search Tools Influence Flower *(*[What are Influence Flowers?](https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/)) CORE Recommender *(*[What is CORE?](https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender))# arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? [ Learn more about arXivLabs](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html).