Pros and Cons! Evaluating ChatGPT on Software Vulnerability
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03994v1
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:08:34 GMT
- Title: Pros and Cons! Evaluating ChatGPT on Software Vulnerability
- Authors: Xin Yin,
- Abstract summary: We evaluate ChatGPT using Big-Vul covering five different common software vulnerability tasks.
We found that the existing state-of-the-art methods are generally superior to ChatGPT in software vulnerability detection.
ChatGPT exhibits limited vulnerability repair capabilities in both providing and not providing context information.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: This paper proposes a pipeline for quantitatively evaluating interactive LLMs such as ChatGPT using publicly available dataset. We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using Big-Vul covering five different common software vulnerability tasks. We evaluate the multitask and multilingual aspects of ChatGPT based on this dataset. We found that the existing state-of-the-art methods are generally superior to ChatGPT in software vulnerability detection. Although ChatGPT improves accuracy when providing context information, it still has limitations in accurately predicting severity ratings for certain CWE types. In addition, ChatGPT demonstrates some ability in locating vulnerabilities for certain CWE types, but its performance varies among different CWE types. ChatGPT exhibits limited vulnerability repair capabilities in both providing and not providing context information. Finally, ChatGPT shows uneven performance in generating CVE descriptions for various CWE types, with limited accuracy in detailed information. Overall, though ChatGPT performs well in some aspects, it still needs improvement in understanding the subtle differences in code vulnerabilities and the ability to describe vulnerabilities in order to fully realize its potential. Our evaluation framework provides valuable insights for further enhancing ChatGPT' s software vulnerability handling capabilities.
Related papers
- Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Management [56.4403395100589]
We explore ChatGPT's capabilities on 6 tasks involving the complete vulnerability management process with a large-scale dataset containing 70,346 samples.
One notable example is ChatGPT's proficiency in tasks like generating titles for software bug reports.
Our findings reveal the difficulties encountered by ChatGPT and shed light on promising future directions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-11T11:01:13Z) - ChatGPT for Vulnerability Detection, Classification, and Repair: How Far
Are We? [24.61869093475626]
Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT exhibited remarkable advancement in a range of software engineering tasks.
We compare ChatGPT with state-of-the-art language models designed for software vulnerability purposes.
We found that ChatGPT achieves limited performance, trailing behind other language models in vulnerability contexts by a significant margin.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-15T12:01:35Z) - When ChatGPT Meets Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection: How Far Are We? [34.61179425241671]
We present an empirical study to investigate the performance of ChatGPT in identifying smart contract vulnerabilities.
ChatGPT achieves a high recall rate, but its precision in pinpointing smart contract vulnerabilities is limited.
Our research provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of employing large language models, specifically ChatGPT, for the detection of smart contract vulnerabilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-11T15:02:44Z) - Using ChatGPT as a Static Application Security Testing Tool [0.0]
ChatGPT has caught a huge amount of attention with its remarkable performance.
We study the feasibility of using ChatGPT for vulnerability detection in Python source code.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-28T09:21:37Z) - Prompt-Enhanced Software Vulnerability Detection Using ChatGPT [9.35868869848051]
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT have received considerable attention due to their stunning intelligence.
This paper launches a study on the performance of software vulnerability detection using ChatGPT with different prompt designs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-24T10:30:33Z) - ChatLog: Carefully Evaluating the Evolution of ChatGPT Across Time [54.18651663847874]
ChatGPT has achieved great success and can be considered to have acquired an infrastructural status.
Existing benchmarks encounter two challenges: (1) Disregard for periodical evaluation and (2) Lack of fine-grained features.
We construct ChatLog, an ever-updating dataset with large-scale records of diverse long-form ChatGPT responses for 21 NLP benchmarks from March, 2023 to now.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-27T11:33:48Z) - To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection.
We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains.
Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z) - Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study [121.77986688862302]
We provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric.
Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments.
We hope our preliminary study could prompt the emergence of a general-purposed reliable NLG metric.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-07T16:57:20Z) - Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and
Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries.
We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models.
We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z) - Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot.
Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community.
It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)
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.