To Err is Machine: Vulnerability Detection Challenges LLM Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17218v2
• Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 21:57:38 GMT
• Title: To Err is Machine: Vulnerability Detection Challenges LLM Reasoning
• Authors: Benjamin Steenhoek, Md Mahbubur Rahman, Monoshi Kumar Roy, Mirza Sanjida Alam, Hengbo Tong, Swarna Das, Earl T. Barr, Wei Le,
• Abstract summary: We present a challenging code reasoning task: vulnerability detection.<n>State-of-the-art (SOTA) models reported only 54.5% Balanced Accuracy in our vulnerability detection evaluation.<n>New models, new training methods, or more execution-specific pretraining data may be needed to conquer vulnerability detection.
• Score: 8.602355712876815
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we present a challenging code reasoning task: vulnerability detection. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in natural-language and math reasoning, but state-of-the-art (SOTA) models reported only 54.5% Balanced Accuracy in our vulnerability detection evaluation, even those models pre-trained on large amounts of source code. Our error analysis on LLM responses shows that the models struggle to reason about the code semantics relevant to identifying vulnerabilities, especially subtle semantic differences caused by small textual changes. We explored prominent models and training settings to understand their effects on vulnerability detection performance -- including better prompts, larger models, more pre-training data, and fine-tuning -- but none led to significant improvements. This raises the question of whether simply scaling training data and model size will allow us to "solve" complex code reasoning tasks like vulnerability detection, or if a fundamental shift in modeling and training techniques is required. We also explored adding domain knowledge to prompts; although it helped certain models understand some code semantics, vulnerability detection requires multi-step reasoning, and these models still failed in steps, such as reasoning about variable relations. Our results suggest that new models, new training methods, or more execution-specific pretraining data may be needed to conquer vulnerability detection. We speculate that auto-regressive pre-training on source code may not effectively extract code semantics, especially on the current pretraining mixtures, in which execution data is scarce. Success on vulnerability detection as a code reasoning task can benefit many areas of software engineering such as debugging, test input generation, and program repair. Our code and data are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27368025.

Related papers

• Trace Gadgets: Minimizing Code Context for Machine Learning-Based Vulnerability Prediction [8.056137513320065]
  This work introduces Trace Gadgets, a novel code representation that minimizes code context by removing non-related code. As input for ML models, Trace Gadgets provide a minimal but complete context, thereby improving the detection performance. Our results show that state-of-the-art machine learning models perform best when using Trace Gadgets compared to previous code representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T13:13:39Z)
• What Do Learning Dynamics Reveal About Generalization in LLM Reasoning? [83.83230167222852]
  We find that a model's generalization behavior can be effectively characterized by a training metric we call pre-memorization train accuracy. By connecting a model's learning behavior to its generalization, pre-memorization train accuracy can guide targeted improvements to training strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T09:52:40Z)
• DFEPT: Data Flow Embedding for Enhancing Pre-Trained Model Based Vulnerability Detection [7.802093464108404]
  We propose a data flow embedding technique to enhance the performance of pre-trained models in vulnerability detection tasks. Specifically, we parse data flow graphs from function-level source code, and use the data type of the variable as the node characteristics of the DFG. Our research shows that DFEPT can provide effective vulnerability semantic information to pre-trained models, achieving an accuracy of 64.97% on the Devign dataset and an F1-Score of 47.9% on the Reveal dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T07:05:07Z)
• 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)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses. Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies. We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• 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)
• Towards Effectively Detecting and Explaining Vulnerabilities Using Large Language Models [17.96542494363619]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in comprehending complex contexts. In this paper, we conduct a study to investigate the capabilities of LLMs in both detecting and explaining vulnerabilities. Under specialized fine-tuning for vulnerability explanation, our LLMVulExp not only detects the types of vulnerabilities in the code but also analyzes the code context to generate the cause, location, and repair suggestions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T04:01:25Z)
• VulDetectBench: Evaluating the Deep Capability of Vulnerability Detection with Large Language Models [12.465060623389151]
  This study introduces a new benchmark, VulDetectBench, to assess the vulnerability detection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) The benchmark comprehensively evaluates LLM's ability to identify, classify, and locate vulnerabilities through five tasks of increasing difficulty. Our benchmark effectively evaluates the capabilities of various LLMs at different levels in the specific task of vulnerability detection, providing a foundation for future research and improvements in this critical area of code security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T13:42:57Z)
• 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)
• DLAP: A Deep Learning Augmented Large Language Model Prompting Framework for Software Vulnerability Detection [12.686480870065827]
  This paper contributes textbfDLAP, a framework that combines the best of both deep learning (DL) models and Large Language Models (LLMs) to achieve exceptional vulnerability detection performance. Experiment results confirm that DLAP outperforms state-of-the-art prompting frameworks, including role-based prompts, auxiliary information prompts, chain-of-thought prompts, and in-context learning prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T11:44:52Z)
• LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarks [17.522223535347905]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been suggested for use in automated vulnerability repair, but benchmarks showing they can consistently identify security-related bugs are lacking. We develop SecLLMHolmes, a fully automated evaluation framework that performs the most detailed investigation to date on whether LLMs can reliably identify and reason about security-related bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T20:19:43Z)
• Zero-shot Retrieval: Augmenting Pre-trained Models with Search Engines [83.65380507372483]
  Large pre-trained models can dramatically reduce the amount of task-specific data required to solve a problem, but they often fail to capture domain-specific nuances out of the box. This paper shows how to leverage recent advances in NLP and multi-modal learning to augment a pre-trained model with search engine retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T05:33:28Z)
• Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilities [12.82645410161464]
  We evaluate the effectiveness of 16 pre-trained Large Language Models on 5,000 code samples from five diverse security datasets. Overall, LLMs show modest effectiveness in detecting vulnerabilities, obtaining an average accuracy of 62.8% and F1 score of 0.71 across datasets. We find that advanced prompting strategies that involve step-by-step analysis significantly improve performance of LLMs on real-world datasets in terms of F1 score (by upto 0.18 on average)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T13:17:20Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Red Teaming Language Model Detectors with Language Models [114.36392560711022]
  Large language models (LLMs) present significant safety and ethical risks if exploited by malicious users. Recent works have proposed algorithms to detect LLM-generated text and protect LLMs. We study two types of attack strategies: 1) replacing certain words in an LLM's output with their synonyms given the context; 2) automatically searching for an instructional prompt to alter the writing style of the generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T10:08:37Z)
• Learning to Quantize Vulnerability Patterns and Match to Locate Statement-Level Vulnerabilities [19.6975205650411]
  A vulnerability codebook is learned, which consists of quantized vectors representing various vulnerability patterns. During inference, the codebook is iterated to match all learned patterns and predict the presence of potential vulnerabilities. Our approach was extensively evaluated on a real-world dataset comprising more than 188,000 C/C++ functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T04:13:31Z)
• AI Model Disgorgement: Methods and Choices [127.54319351058167]
  We introduce a taxonomy of possible disgorgement methods that are applicable to modern machine learning systems. We investigate the meaning of "removing the effects" of data in the trained model in a way that does not require retraining from scratch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T08:50:18Z)
• Enhancing Multiple Reliability Measures via Nuisance-extended Information Bottleneck [77.37409441129995]
  In practical scenarios where training data is limited, many predictive signals in the data can be rather from some biases in data acquisition. We consider an adversarial threat model under a mutual information constraint to cover a wider class of perturbations in training. We propose an autoencoder-based training to implement the objective, as well as practical encoder designs to facilitate the proposed hybrid discriminative-generative training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-24T16:03:21Z)
• 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)
• Improving robustness of jet tagging algorithms with adversarial training [56.79800815519762]
  We investigate the vulnerability of flavor tagging algorithms via application of adversarial attacks. We present an adversarial training strategy that mitigates the impact of such simulated attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-25T19:57:19Z)

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.