Qwen2.5 7B (local) (thinking off) on Reverse engineer a security patch for an exploited CVE
QQwen2.5 7B (local)thinking off · ollama-mini-agent v1.0 · local (NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB, 12 GB) · 2026-10-20 · by @bobsiopener
- Cost
- $0 (local)
- Wall time
- 12s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Outcome
- Fail
Compare with other models on this task →
Summary
Exact prompt
patch.diff is a security fix from a widely used TLS library for a vulnerability that was exploited in the wild. Analyze only the diff (no web). Write ANALYSIS.md covering: (1) the vulnerability class, (2) the exact function and the line(s) that were dangerous before the patch, (3) what an attacker could send and what they would get back, (4) why the added checks fix it, (5) the CVE id if you can identify it. Do not write exploit code.
Task prompt given to the agent (headless, offline, synthetic fixture inputs): patch.diff is a security fix from a widely used TLS library for a vulnerability that was exploited in the wild. Analyze only the diff (no web). Write ANALYSIS.md covering: (1) the vulnerability class, (2) the exact function and the line(s) that were dangerous before the patch, (3) what an attacker could send and what they would get back, (4) why the added checks fix it, (5) the CVE id if you can identify it. Do not write exploit code. Inspired by https://x.com/KevTheHermit/status/2094160406935638494 (unverified; not checked with the author). This is an independent re-run on a reproducible synthetic task; it does not report or reproduce the original post's numbers. Local model: $0 API cost; electricity not measured.
Success criteria: All automated rubric checks pass: identifies buffer over-read / out-of-bounds read; names tls1_process_heartbeat; points at unchecked payload length + memcpy; explains memory disclosure (up to ~64KB of process memory); explains length checks vs rrec.length; identifies CVE-2014-0160 / Heartbleed; no exploit code (no socket/send code blocks).
Setup notes: Harness: ollama-mini-agent v1.0. Minimal tool loop, same system prompt, tools (list_files/read_file/write_file/run_shell), 25-turn limit and temperature 0.2 as the Venice mini-agent; run_shell sandboxed (read-only system, no network, only the work dir writable). Local Ollama, no cost cap needed. Model: Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Q4_K_M (4.7 GB), Ollama 0.20.0, num_ctx 16384. GPU free at batch start: 6933 MiB of 12288 MiB (shared GPU). Tokens: Ollama prompt_eval_count / eval_count summed over calls. Single run, no retries; scored automatically (1/7 checks). Runner notes: Single run, no retries, no interventions. Same rubric and scorer checks as the other runs of this case. Network off for the agent's shell.
Metrics
- Cost
- $0 (local)
- Wall time
- 12s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Turns
- 2
| Model | Input tok | Output tok | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| QQwen2.5 7B (local)ollama/qwen2.5:7bthinking off | 1,324 | 674 | $0 (local) |
Reproduce this run
- Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
- Same setup: Qwen2.5 7B (local) (ollama/qwen2.5:7b, thinking off) via
ollama-mini-agent v1.0, local on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB. - It counts as a success only if it meets every success criterion: All automated rubric checks pass: identifies buffer over-read / out-of-bounds read; names tls1_process_heartbeat; points at unchecked payload length + memcpy; explains memory disclosure (up to ~64KB of process memory); explains length checks vs rrec.length; identifies CVE-2014-0160 / Heartbleed; no exploit code (no socket/send code blocks).
- Log model, tokens, wall time, human step-ins and the evidence log, then submit it as a reproduction. A different model? Submit a head-to-head rerun.
How runs are scored: Methodology.
Was this useful?
Automated checks
Trust 80% comes from these checks (how Trust % works).
- Run date is not in the future : passed
- Model is in the dated pricing table : passed
- Cost recomputed from tokens matches : passed
- Cached tokens are consistent : passed
- Output throughput is plausible : passed
- Autonomy matches step-ins : passed
- Step-ins do not exceed turns : passed
- Retries agree with first-try result : passed
- Evidence log SHA-256 matches : passed
- Evidence log is substantial : passed
Evidence log
{"turn": 1, "response": {"model": "qwen2.5:7b", "created_at": "2026-10-20T19:13:27.825446289Z", "message": {"role": "assistant", "content": "", "tool_calls": [{"id": "call_gq6w18tx", "function": {"index": 0, "name": "read_file", "arguments": {"path": "patch.diff"}}}, {"id": "call_r53a8k1r", "function": {"index": 1, "name": "list_files", "arguments": {"path": "."}}}, {"id": "call_u4xlubzv", "function": {"index": 2, "name": "read_file", "arguments": {"path": "ANALYSIS.md"}}}]}, "done": true, "done_reason": "stop", "total_duration": 1204152579, "load_duration": 81486007, "prompt_eval_count": 414, "prompt_eval_duration": 59548341, "eval_count": 63, "eval_duration": 1007917942}}
{"turn": 1, "tool": "read_file", "args": {"path": "patch.diff"}, "result": "--- a/ssl/t1_lib.c\n+++ b/ssl/t1_lib.c\n@@ int tls1_process_heartbeat(SSL *s)\n \tunsigned char *p = &s->s3->rrec.data[0], *pl;\n \tunsigned short hbtype;\n \tunsigned int payload;\n \tunsigned int padding = 16; /* Use minimum padding */\n \n-\t/* Read type and payload length first */\n-\thbtype = *p++;\n-\tn2s(p, payload);\n-\tpl = p;\n-\n \tif (s->msg_callback)\n \t\ts->msg_callback(0, s->version, TLS1_RT_HEARTBEAT,\n \t\t\t&s->s3->rrec.data[0], s->s3->rrec.length,\n \t\t\ts, s->msg_callback_arg);\n \n+\t/* Read type and payload length first */\n+\tif (1 + 2 + 16 > s->s3->rrec.length)\n+\t\treturn 0; /* silently discard */\n+\thbtype = *p++;\n+\tn2s(p, payload);\n+\tif (1 + 2 + payload + 16 > s->s3->rrec.length)\n+\t\treturn 0; /* silently discard per RFC 6520 sec. 4 */\n+\tpl = p;\n+\n \tif (hbtype == TLS1_HB_REQUEST)\n \t\t{\n \t\tunsigned char *buffer, *bp;\n \t\tint r;\n@@\n \t\tbp = buffer;\n \t\t\n \t\t/* Enter response type, length and copy payload */\n \t\t*bp++ = TLS1_HB_RESPONSE;\n \t\ts2n(payload, bp);\n \t\tmemcpy(bp, pl, payload);\n"}
{"turn": 1, "tool": "list_files", "args": {"path": "."}, "result": "patch.diff"}
{"turn": 1, "tool": "read_file", "args": {"path": "ANALYSIS.md"}, "result": "ERROR: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/uc-ollama/runs/19-ollama-qwen2-5-7b/work/ANALYSIS.md'"}
{"turn": 2, "response": {"model": "qwen2.5:7b", "created_at": "2026-10-20T19:13:39.032851279Z", "message": {"role": "assistant", "content": "Based on the provided diff, let's analyze the security fix for the TLS library vulnerability:\n\n1. **Vulnerability Class**: The vulnerability is related to Heartbleed (CVE-2014-0160), which allows attackers to read sensitive information from memory by sending malformed heartbeat requests.\n\n2. **Exact Function and Line(s) Before Patch**:\n - The function `tls1_process_heartbeat` in `ssl/t1_lib.c`.\n - Lines before the patch: \n ```c\n /* Read type and payload length first */\n hbtype = *p++;\n n2s(p, payload);\n pl = p;\n ```\n\n3. **What an Attacker Could Send and What They Would Get Back**:\n - An attacker could send a heartbeat request with a payload larger than the actual data in `rrec.data`. The server would silently discard any extra bytes beyond the actual length.\n - This allowed attackers to potentially read sensitive information from the server's memory.\n\n4. **Why the Added Checks Fix It**:\n - The patch adds checks to ensure that the total length of the heartbeat response does not exceed the available data in `rrec.data`.\n ```c\n if (1 + 2 + 16 > s->s3->rrec.length)\n return 0; /* silently discard */\n if (1 + 2 + payload + 16 > s->s3->rrec.length)\n return 0; /* silently discard per RFC 6520 sec. 4 */\n ```\n - These checks prevent the server from sending more data than it has, thus mitigating the risk of leaking sensitive information.\n\n5. **CVE ID**: The CVE identifier for this specific vulnerability is not explicitly mentioned in the diff provided, but it relates to Heartbleed (CVE-2014-0160).\n\nHere's a summary of the analysis:\n\n```markdown\n# ANALYSIS.md\n\n## 1. Vulnerability Class\nThe vulnerability class is related to Heartbleed.\n\n## 2. Exact Function and Line(s) Before Patch\nFunction: `tls1_process_heartbeat` in `ssl/t1_lib.c`.\nLines before patch:\n```c\n/* Read type and payload length first */\nhbtype = *p++;\nn2s(p, payload);\npl = p;\n```\n\n## 3. What an Attacker Could Send and What They Would Get Back\nAn attacker could send a heartbeat request with a large payload, potentially reading sensitive information from the server's memory.\n\n## 4. Why the Added Checks Fix It\nThe added checks ensure that the total length of the response does not exceed the available data in `rrec.data`, preventing potential information leaks.\n\n## 5. CVE ID\nThis vulnerability is related to Heartbleed (CVE-2014-0160).\n```\n\nThis analysis covers the key points without writing any exploit code."}, "done": true, "done_reason": "stop", "total_duration": 11206162857, "load_duration": 80845490, "prompt_eval_count": 910, "prompt_eval_duration": 244263320, "eval_count": 611, "eval_duration": 10431458195}}