Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential for coding, yet fine-tuning (FT) with curated data is essential for niche languages like Verilog. Using proprietary intellectual property (IP) for FT presents a serious risk, as FT data can be leaked through LLM inference. This leads to a critical dilemma for design houses: seeking to build externally accessible LLMs offering competitive Verilog coding, how can they leverage in-house IP to enhance FT utility while ensuring IP protection? For the first time in the literature, we study this dilemma. Using LLaMA 3.1-8B, we conduct in-house FT on a baseline Verilog dataset (RTLCoder) supplemented with our own in-house IP, which is validated through multiple tape-outs. To rigorously assess IP leakage, we quantify structural similarity (AST/Dolos) and functional equivalence (Synopsys Formality) between generated codes and our in-house IP. We show that our IP can indeed be leaked, confirming the threat. As defense, we evaluate logic locking of Verilog codes (ASSURE). This offers some level of protection, yet reduces the IP's utility for FT and degrades the LLM's performance. Our study shows the need for novel strategies that are both effective and minimally disruptive to FT, an essential effort for enabling design houses to fully utilize their proprietary IP toward LLM-driven Verilog coding.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized code generation, achieving exceptional results on various established benchmarking frameworks. However, concerns about data contamination - where benchmark data inadvertently leaks into pre-training or fine-tuning datasets - raise questions about the validity of these evaluations. While this issue is known, limiting the industrial adoption of LLM-driven software engineering, hardware coding has received little to no attention regarding these risks. For the first time, we analyze state-of-the-art (SOTA) evaluation frameworks for Verilog code generation (VerilogEval and RTLLM), using established methods for contamination detection (CCD and Min-K% Prob). We cover SOTA commercial and open-source LLMs (CodeGen2.5, Minitron 4b, Mistral 7b, phi-4 mini, LLaMA-{1,2,3.1}, GPT-{2,3.5,4o}, Deepseek-Coder, and CodeQwen 1.5), in baseline and fine-tuned models (RTLCoder and Verigen). Our study confirms that data contamination is a critical concern. We explore mitigations and the resulting trade-offs for code quality vs fairness (i.e., reducing contamination toward unbiased benchmarking).

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer transformative capabilities for hardware design automation, particularly in Verilog code generation. However, they also pose significant data security challenges, including Verilog evaluation data contamination, intellectual property (IP) design leakage, and the risk of malicious Verilog generation. We introduce SALAD, a comprehensive assessment that leverages machine unlearning to mitigate these threats. Our approach enables the selective removal of contaminated benchmarks, sensitive IP and design artifacts, or malicious code patterns from pre-trained LLMs, all without requiring full retraining. Through detailed case studies, we demonstrate how machine unlearning techniques effectively reduce data security risks in LLM-aided hardware design.

While static analysis is useful in detecting early-stage hardware security bugs, its efficacy is limited because it requires information to form checks and is often unable to explain the security impact of a detected vulnerability. Large Language Models can be useful in filling these gaps by identifying relevant assets, removing false violations flagged by static analysis tools, and explaining the reported violations. LASHED combines the two approaches (LLMs and Static Analysis) to overcome each other's limitations for hardware security bug detection. We investigate our approach on four open-source SoCs for five Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs) and present strategies for improvement with better prompt engineering. We find that 87.5% of instances flagged by our recommended scheme are plausible CWEs. In-context learning and asking the model to 'think again' improves LASHED's precision.

Hardware security verification is a challenging and time-consuming task. For this purpose, design engineers may utilize tools such as formal verification, linters, and functional simulation tests, coupled with analysis and a deep understanding of the hardware design being inspected. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used to assist during this task, either directly or in conjunction with existing tools. We improve the state of the art by proposing MARVEL, a multi-agent LLM framework for a unified approach to decision-making, tool use, and reasoning. MARVEL mimics the cognitive process of a designer looking for security vulnerabilities in RTL code. It consists of a supervisor agent that devises the security policy of the system-on-chips (SoCs) using its security documentation. It delegates tasks to validate the security policy to individual executor agents. Each executor agent carries out its assigned task using a particular strategy. Each executor agent may use one or more tools to identify potential security bugs in the design and send the results back to the supervisor agent for further analysis and confirmation. MARVEL includes executor agents that leverage formal tools, linters, simulation tests, LLM-based detection schemes, and static analysis-based checks. We test our approach on a known buggy SoC based on OpenTitan from the Hack@DATE competition. We find that 20 of the 48 issues reported by MARVEL pose security vulnerabilities.