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

• 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)
• Towards Safety and Helpfulness Balanced Responses via Controllable Large Language Models [64.5204594279587]
  A model that prioritizes safety will cause users to feel less engaged and assisted while prioritizing helpfulness will potentially cause harm. We propose to balance safety and helpfulness in diverse use cases by controlling both attributes in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T17:59:06Z)
• 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)
• Exploring the Problems, their Causes and Solutions of AI Pair Programming: A Study on GitHub and Stack Overflow [6.724815667295355]
  GitHub Copilot, the AI programmer pair, utilize machine learning models trained on a large corpus of code snippets to generate code suggestions. Despite its popularity in software development, there is limited empirical evidence on the actual experiences of practitioners who work with Copilot. We collected data from 473 GitHub issues, 706 GitHub discussions, and 142 Stack Overflow posts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T06:24:38Z)
• 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)
• Measuring the Runtime Performance of Code Produced with GitHub Copilot [1.6021036144262577]
  We evaluate the runtime performance of code produced when developers use GitHub Copilot versus when they do not. Our results suggest that using Copilot may produce code with a significantly slower runtime performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T20:14:52Z)
• 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)
• Safe Reinforcement Learning via Curriculum Induction [94.67835258431202]
  In safety-critical applications, autonomous agents may need to learn in an environment where mistakes can be very costly. Existing safe reinforcement learning methods make an agent rely on priors that let it avoid dangerous situations. This paper presents an alternative approach inspired by human teaching, where an agent learns under the supervision of an automatic instructor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T10:48:17Z)

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.