A Case Study of LLM for Automated Vulnerability Repair: Assessing Impact of Reasoning and Patch Validation Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15690v1
• Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 16:29:48 GMT
• Title: A Case Study of LLM for Automated Vulnerability Repair: Assessing Impact of Reasoning and Patch Validation Feedback
• Authors: Ummay Kulsum, Haotian Zhu, Bowen Xu, Marcelo d'Amorim,
• Abstract summary: We present VRpilot, a vulnerability repair technique based on reasoning and patch validation feedback. Our results show that VRpilot generates, on average, 14% and 7.6% more correct patches than the baseline techniques on C and Java.
• Score: 7.742213291781287
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent work in automated program repair (APR) proposes the use of reasoning and patch validation feedback to reduce the semantic gap between the LLMs and the code under analysis. The idea has been shown to perform well for general APR, but its effectiveness in other particular contexts remains underexplored. In this work, we assess the impact of reasoning and patch validation feedback to LLMs in the context of vulnerability repair, an important and challenging task in security. To support the evaluation, we present VRpilot, an LLM-based vulnerability repair technique based on reasoning and patch validation feedback. VRpilot (1) uses a chain-of-thought prompt to reason about a vulnerability prior to generating patch candidates and (2) iteratively refines prompts according to the output of external tools (e.g., compiler, code sanitizers, test suite, etc.) on previously-generated patches. To evaluate performance, we compare VRpilot against the state-of-the-art vulnerability repair techniques for C and Java using public datasets from the literature. Our results show that VRpilot generates, on average, 14% and 7.6% more correct patches than the baseline techniques on C and Java, respectively. We show, through an ablation study, that reasoning and patch validation feedback are critical. We report several lessons from this study and potential directions for advancing LLM-empowered vulnerability repair

Related papers

• The VLLM Safety Paradox: Dual Ease in Jailbreak Attack and Defense [56.32083100401117]
  We investigate why Vision Large Language Models (VLLMs) are prone to jailbreak attacks. We then make a key observation: existing defense mechanisms suffer from an textbfover-prudence problem. We find that the two representative evaluation methods for jailbreak often exhibit chance agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T07:57:19Z)
• AutoPT: How Far Are We from the End2End Automated Web Penetration Testing? [54.65079443902714]
  We introduce AutoPT, an automated penetration testing agent based on the principle of PSM driven by LLMs. Our results show that AutoPT outperforms the baseline framework ReAct on the GPT-4o mini model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-02T13:24:30Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• Hybrid Automated Program Repair by Combining Large Language Models and Program Analysis [12.7034916462208]
  Automated Program Repair (APR) has garnered significant attention due to its potential to streamline the bug repair process for human developers. This paper introduces an innovative APR approach called GIANTREPAIR. Based on this insight, GIANTREPAIR first constructs patch skeletons from LLM-generated patches to confine the patch space, and then generates high-quality patches tailored to specific programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T05:05:12Z)
• Software Vulnerability and Functionality Assessment using LLMs [0.8057006406834466]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can aid with code reviews. Our investigation focuses on two tasks that we argue are fundamental to good reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T11:29:13Z)
• A Novel Approach for Automatic Program Repair using Round-Trip Translation with Large Language Models [50.86686630756207]
  Research shows that grammatical mistakes in a sentence can be corrected by translating it to another language and back. Current generative models for Automatic Program Repair (APR) are pre-trained on source code and fine-tuned for repair. This paper proposes bypassing the fine-tuning step and using Round-Trip Translation (RTT): translation of code from one programming language to another programming or natural language, and back.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-15T22:36:31Z)
• The Right Prompts for the Job: Repair Code-Review Defects with Large Language Model [15.885824575879763]
  Automatic program repair (APR) techniques have the potential to reduce manual efforts in uncovering and repairing program defects during the code review (CR) process. However, the limited accuracy and considerable time costs associated with existing APR approaches hinder their adoption in industrial practice. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enhanced their ability to comprehend natural and programming languages, enabling them to generate patches based on review comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-29T06:12:15Z)
• Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
  This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z)
• RAP-Gen: Retrieval-Augmented Patch Generation with CodeT5 for Automatic Program Repair [75.40584530380589]
  We propose a novel Retrieval-Augmented Patch Generation framework (RAP-Gen) RAP-Gen explicitly leveraging relevant fix patterns retrieved from a list of previous bug-fix pairs. We evaluate RAP-Gen on three benchmarks in two programming languages, including the TFix benchmark in JavaScript, and Code Refinement and Defects4J benchmarks in Java.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T08:52:56Z)
• Patch Space Exploration using Static Analysis Feedback [8.13782364161157]
  We show how to automatically repair memory safety issues, by leveraging static analysis to guide repair. Our proposed approach learns what a desirable patch is by inspecting how close a patch is to fixing the bug. We make repair scalable by creating classes of equivalent patches according to the effect they have on the symbolic heap, and then invoking the validation oracle only once per class of patch equivalence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T05:22:10Z)
• AIBugHunter: A Practical Tool for Predicting, Classifying and Repairing Software Vulnerabilities [27.891905729536372]
  AIBugHunter is a novel ML-based software vulnerability analysis tool for C/C++ languages that is integrated into Visual Studio Code. We propose a novel multi-objective optimization (MOO)-based vulnerability classification approach and a transformer-based estimation approach to help AIBugHunter accurately identify vulnerability types and estimate severity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T04:21:53Z)

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.