Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilities
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16169v2
- Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:12:48 GMT
- Title: Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilities
- Authors: Avishree Khare, Saikat Dutta, Ziyang Li, Alaia Solko-Breslin, Rajeev Alur, Mayur Naik,
- Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on code-related tasks.
We evaluate whether pre-trained LLMs can detect security vulnerabilities and address the limitations of existing tools.
- Score: 12.82645410161464
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: Security vulnerabilities in modern software are prevalent and harmful. While automated vulnerability detection tools have made promising progress, their scalability and applicability remain challenging. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT-4 and CodeLlama, have demonstrated remarkable performance on code-related tasks. However, it is unknown whether such LLMs can do complex reasoning over code. In this work, we explore whether pre-trained LLMs can detect security vulnerabilities and address the limitations of existing tools. We evaluate the effectiveness of pre-trained LLMs, in terms of performance, explainability, and robustness, on a set of five diverse security benchmarks spanning two languages, Java and C/C++, and covering both synthetic and real-world projects. Overall, all LLMs show modest effectiveness in end-to-end reasoning about vulnerabilities, obtaining an average of 60% accuracy across all datasets. However, we observe that LLMs show promising abilities at performing parts of the analysis correctly, such as identifying vulnerability-related specifications (e.g., sources and sinks) and leveraging natural language information to understand code behavior (e.g., to check if code is sanitized). Further, LLMs are relatively much better at detecting simpler vulnerabilities that typically only need local reasoning (e.g., Integer Overflows and NULL pointer dereference). We find that advanced prompting strategies that involve step-by-step analysis significantly improve performance of LLMs on real-world datasets (improving F1 score by up to 0.25 on average). Finally, we share our insights and recommendations for future work on leveraging LLMs for vulnerability detection.
Related papers
- Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses.
Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives.
The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z) - SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations.
First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.
Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z) - Security Vulnerability Detection with Multitask Self-Instructed Fine-Tuning of Large Language Models [8.167614500821223]
We introduce MSIVD, multitask self-instructed fine-tuning for vulnerability detection, inspired by chain-of-thought prompting and LLM self-instruction.
Our experiments demonstrate that MSIVD achieves superior performance, outperforming the highest LLM-based vulnerability detector baseline (LineVul) with a F1 score of 0.92 on the BigVul dataset, and 0.48 on the PreciseBugs dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-09T19:18:05Z) - Harnessing Large Language Models for Software Vulnerability Detection: A Comprehensive Benchmarking Study [1.03590082373586]
We propose using large language models (LLMs) to assist in finding vulnerabilities in source code.
The aim is to test multiple state-of-the-art LLMs and identify the best prompting strategies.
We find that LLMs can pinpoint many more issues than traditional static analysis tools, outperforming traditional tools in terms of recall and F1 scores.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-24T14:59:19Z) - Multitask-based Evaluation of Open-Source LLM on Software Vulnerability [2.7692028382314815]
This paper proposes a pipeline for quantitatively evaluating interactive Large Language Models (LLMs) using publicly available datasets.
We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of LLMs using Big-Vul covering four different common software vulnerability tasks.
We find that the existing state-of-the-art approaches and pre-trained Language Models (LMs) are generally superior to LLMs in software vulnerability detection.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-02T15:52:05Z) - A Comprehensive Study of the Capabilities of Large Language Models for Vulnerability Detection [9.422811525274675]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for code generation and other software engineering tasks.
Vulnerability detection is of crucial importance to maintaining the security, integrity, and trustworthiness of software systems.
Recent work has applied LLMs to vulnerability detection using generic prompting techniques, but their capabilities for this task and the types of errors they make remain unclear.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-25T21:47:36Z) - CodeAttack: Revealing Safety Generalization Challenges of Large Language Models via Code Completion [117.178835165855]
This paper introduces CodeAttack, a framework that transforms natural language inputs into code inputs.
Our studies reveal a new and universal safety vulnerability of these models against code input.
We find that a larger distribution gap between CodeAttack and natural language leads to weaker safety generalization.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-12T17:55:38Z) - PPTC-R benchmark: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language
Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
We construct adversarial user instructions by attacking user instructions at sentence, semantic, and multi-language levels.
We test 3 closed-source and 4 open-source LLMs using a benchmark that incorporates robustness settings.
We find that GPT-4 exhibits the highest performance and strong robustness in our benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-06T15:33:32Z) - How Far Have We Gone in Vulnerability Detection Using Large Language
Models [15.09461331135668]
We introduce a comprehensive vulnerability benchmark VulBench.
This benchmark aggregates high-quality data from a wide range of CTF challenges and real-world applications.
We find that several LLMs outperform traditional deep learning approaches in vulnerability detection.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-21T08:20:39Z) - Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMs [59.596335292426105]
This paper collects the first open-source dataset to evaluate safeguards in large language models.
We train several BERT-like classifiers to achieve results comparable with GPT-4 on automatic safety evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-25T14:02:12Z) - VELVET: a noVel Ensemble Learning approach to automatically locate
VulnErable sTatements [62.93814803258067]
This paper presents VELVET, a novel ensemble learning approach to locate vulnerable statements in source code.
Our model combines graph-based and sequence-based neural networks to successfully capture the local and global context of a program graph.
VELVET achieves 99.6% and 43.6% top-1 accuracy over synthetic data and real-world data, respectively.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-12-20T22:45:27Z)
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.