How Effective Are Neural Networks for Fixing Security Vulnerabilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18607v2
• Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 00:48:11 GMT
• Title: How Effective Are Neural Networks for Fixing Security Vulnerabilities
• Authors: Yi Wu, Nan Jiang, Hung Viet Pham, Thibaud Lutellier, Jordan Davis, Lin Tan, Petr Babkin, Sameena Shah,
• Abstract summary: This paper is the first to study and compare Java vulnerability repair capabilities of LLMs and DL-based APR models. The results call for innovations to enhance automated Java vulnerability repair such as creating larger vulnerability repair training data.
• Score: 25.050519427592253
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Security vulnerability repair is a difficult task that is in dire need of automation. Two groups of techniques have shown promise: (1) large code language models (LLMs) that have been pre-trained on source code for tasks such as code completion, and (2) automated program repair (APR) techniques that use deep learning (DL) models to automatically fix software bugs. This paper is the first to study and compare Java vulnerability repair capabilities of LLMs and DL-based APR models. The contributions include that we (1) apply and evaluate five LLMs (Codex, CodeGen, CodeT5, PLBART and InCoder), four fine-tuned LLMs, and four DL-based APR techniques on two real-world Java vulnerability benchmarks (Vul4J and VJBench), (2) design code transformations to address the training and test data overlapping threat to Codex, (3) create a new Java vulnerability repair benchmark VJBench, and its transformed version VJBench-trans and (4) evaluate LLMs and APR techniques on the transformed vulnerabilities in VJBench-trans. Our findings include that (1) existing LLMs and APR models fix very few Java vulnerabilities. Codex fixes 10.2 (20.4%), the most number of vulnerabilities. (2) Fine-tuning with general APR data improves LLMs' vulnerability-fixing capabilities. (3) Our new VJBench reveals that LLMs and APR models fail to fix many Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types, such as CWE-325 Missing cryptographic step and CWE-444 HTTP request smuggling. (4) Codex still fixes 8.3 transformed vulnerabilities, outperforming all the other LLMs and APR models on transformed vulnerabilities. The results call for innovations to enhance automated Java vulnerability repair such as creating larger vulnerability repair training data, tuning LLMs with such data, and applying code simplification transformation to facilitate vulnerability repair.

Related papers

• Iterative Self-Tuning LLMs for Enhanced Jailbreaking Capabilities [63.603861880022954]
  We introduce ADV-LLM, an iterative self-tuning process that crafts adversarial LLMs with enhanced jailbreak ability. Our framework significantly reduces the computational cost of generating adversarial suffixes while achieving nearly 100% ASR on various open-source LLMs. It exhibits strong attack transferability to closed-source models, achieving 99% ASR on GPT-3.5 and 49% ASR on GPT-4, despite being optimized solely on Llama3.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T06:36:12Z)
• HexaCoder: Secure Code Generation via Oracle-Guided Synthetic Training Data [60.75578581719921]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for automatic code generation. Recent studies highlight that many LLM-generated code contains serious security vulnerabilities. We introduce HexaCoder, a novel approach to enhance the ability of LLMs to generate secure codes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-10T12:01:43Z)
• Automated Software Vulnerability Patching using Large Language Models [24.958856670970366]
  We leverage the power and merits of pre-trained large language models (LLMs) to enable automated vulnerability patching. To elicit LLMs to effectively reason about vulnerable code behaviors, we introduce adaptive prompting on LLMs. Our evaluation of LLM on real-world vulnerable code including zeroday vulnerabilities demonstrates its superior performance to both existing prompting methods and state-of-the-art non-LLM-based techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T14:51:50Z)
• How Well Do Large Language Models Serve as End-to-End Secure Code Producers? [42.119319820752324]
  We studied GPT-3.5 and GPT-4's capability to identify and repair vulnerabilities in the code generated by four popular LLMs. By manually or automatically reviewing 4,900 pieces of code, our study reveals that large language models lack awareness of scenario-relevant security risks. To address the limitation of a single round of repair, we developed a lightweight tool that prompts LLMs to construct safer source code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T02:42:29Z)
• h4rm3l: A Dynamic Benchmark of Composable Jailbreak Attacks for LLM Safety Assessment [48.5611060845958]
  We propose a novel benchmark of composable jailbreak attacks to move beyond static datasets and of attacks and harms. We use h4rm3l to generate a dataset of 2656 successful novel jailbreak attacks targeting 6 state-of-the-art (SOTA) open-source and proprietary LLMs. Several of our synthesized attacks are more effective than previously reported ones, with Attack Success rates exceeding 90% on SOTA closed language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T01:45:39Z)
• PenHeal: A Two-Stage LLM Framework for Automated Pentesting and Optimal Remediation [18.432274815853116]
  PenHeal is a two-stage LLM-based framework designed to autonomously identify and security vulnerabilities. This paper introduces PenHeal, a two-stage LLM-based framework designed to autonomously identify and security vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T05:42:14Z)
• Is Your AI-Generated Code Really Safe? Evaluating Large Language Models on Secure Code Generation with CodeSecEval [20.959848710829878]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant advancements to code generation and code repair. However, their training using unsanitized data from open-source repositories, like GitHub, raises the risk of inadvertently propagating security vulnerabilities. We aim to present a comprehensive study aimed at precisely evaluating and enhancing the security aspects of code LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:13:21Z)
• M2CVD: Enhancing Vulnerability Semantic through Multi-Model Collaboration for Code Vulnerability Detection [52.4455893010468]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have strong capabilities in code comprehension, but fine-tuning costs and semantic alignment issues limit their project-specific optimization. Code models such CodeBERT are easy to fine-tune, but it is often difficult to learn vulnerability semantics from complex code languages. This paper introduces the Multi-Model Collaborative Vulnerability Detection approach (M2CVD) to improve the detection accuracy of code models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T00:05:49Z)
• Can Large Language Models Find And Fix Vulnerable Software? [0.0]
  GPT-4 identified approximately four times the vulnerabilities than its counterparts. It provided viable fixes for each vulnerability, demonstrating a low rate of false positives. GPT-4's code corrections led to a 90% reduction in vulnerabilities, requiring only an 11% increase in code lines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T19:33:12Z)
• CodeLMSec Benchmark: Systematically Evaluating and Finding Security Vulnerabilities in Black-Box Code Language Models [58.27254444280376]
  Large language models (LLMs) for automatic code generation have achieved breakthroughs in several programming tasks. Training data for these models is usually collected from the Internet (e.g., from open-source repositories) and is likely to contain faults and security vulnerabilities. This unsanitized training data can cause the language models to learn these vulnerabilities and propagate them during the code generation procedure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T11:54:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.