A User-centered Security Evaluation of Copilot

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06587v4
• Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2024 02:34:40 GMT
• Title: A User-centered Security Evaluation of Copilot
• Authors: Owura Asare, Meiyappan Nagappan, N. Asokan
• Abstract summary: We evaluate GitHub's Copilot to better understand its strengths and weaknesses with respect to code security. We find that access to Copilot accompanies a more secure solution when tackling harder problems.
• Score: 12.350130201627186
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code generation tools driven by artificial intelligence have recently become more popular due to advancements in deep learning and natural language processing that have increased their capabilities. The proliferation of these tools may be a double-edged sword because while they can increase developer productivity by making it easier to write code, research has shown that they can also generate insecure code. In this paper, we perform a user-centered evaluation GitHub's Copilot to better understand its strengths and weaknesses with respect to code security. We conduct a user study where participants solve programming problems (with and without Copilot assistance) that have potentially vulnerable solutions. The main goal of the user study is to determine how the use of Copilot affects participants' security performance. In our set of participants (n=25), we find that access to Copilot accompanies a more secure solution when tackling harder problems. For the easier problem, we observe no effect of Copilot access on the security of solutions. We also observe no disproportionate impact of Copilot use on particular kinds of vulnerabilities. Our results indicate that there are potential security benefits to using Copilot, but more research is warranted on the effects of the use of code generation tools on technically complex problems with security requirements.

Related papers

• The Role of GitHub Copilot on Software Development: A Perspec-tive on Productivity, Security, Best Practices and Future Directions [0.0]
  GitHub Copilot is transforming software development by automating tasks and boosting productivity through AI-driven code generation. This paper synthesizes insights on Copilot's impact on productivity and security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T18:08:20Z)
• Open Problems in Machine Unlearning for AI Safety [61.43515658834902]
  Machine unlearning -- the ability to selectively forget or suppress specific types of knowledge -- has shown promise for privacy and data removal tasks. In this paper, we identify key limitations that prevent unlearning from serving as a comprehensive solution for AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T03:59:10Z)
• Fundamental Risks in the Current Deployment of General-Purpose AI Models: What Have We (Not) Learnt From Cybersecurity? [60.629883024152576]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have seen rapid deployment in a wide range of use cases. OpenAIs Altera are just a few examples of increased autonomy, data access, and execution capabilities. These methods come with a range of cybersecurity challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T14:44:41Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context. We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot Generated Code -- A Targeted Replication Study [11.644996472213611]
  Recent studies have investigated security issues in AI-powered code generation tools such as GitHub Copilot and Amazon CodeWhisperer. This paper replicates the study of Pearce et al., which investigated security weaknesses in Copilot and uncovered several weaknesses in the code suggested by Copilot. Our results indicate that, even with the improvements in newer versions of Copilot, the percentage of vulnerable code suggestions has reduced from 36.54% to 27.25%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T22:12:59Z)
• Security Weaknesses of Copilot-Generated Code in GitHub Projects: An Empirical Study [8.364612094301071]
  We analyze code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot and two other AI code generation tools from GitHub projects. Our analysis identified 733 snippets, revealing a high likelihood of security weaknesses, with 29.5% of Python and 24.2% of JavaScript snippets affected. We provide suggestions for mitigating security issues in generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T14:01:28Z)
• Demystifying Practices, Challenges and Expected Features of Using GitHub Copilot [3.655281304961642]
  We conducted an empirical study by collecting and analyzing the data from Stack Overflow (SO) and GitHub Discussions. We identified the programming languages, technologies used with Copilot, functions implemented, benefits, limitations, and challenges when using Copilot. Our results suggest that using Copilot is like a double-edged sword, which requires developers to carefully consider various aspects when deciding whether or not to use it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T16:39:37Z)
• Safe Deep Reinforcement Learning by Verifying Task-Level Properties [84.64203221849648]
  Cost functions are commonly employed in Safe Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) The cost is typically encoded as an indicator function due to the difficulty of quantifying the risk of policy decisions in the state space. In this paper, we investigate an alternative approach that uses domain knowledge to quantify the risk in the proximity of such states by defining a violation metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-20T15:24:06Z)
• Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions [54.55334589363247]
  We study whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:43:34Z)
• Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code? [12.350130201627186]
  We perform a comparative empirical analysis of Copilot-generated code from a security perspective. We investigate whether Copilot is just as likely to introduce the same software vulnerabilities as human developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-10T18:32:04Z)
• Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer Security [74.1816306998445]
  Despite great potential, machine learning in security is prone to subtle pitfalls that undermine its performance. We identify common pitfalls in the design, implementation, and evaluation of learning-based security systems. We propose actionable recommendations to support researchers in avoiding or mitigating the pitfalls where possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T13:09:31Z)

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.