Comparison of Static Application Security Testing Tools and Large Language Models for Repo-level Vulnerability Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16235v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:21:14 GMT
• Title: Comparison of Static Application Security Testing Tools and Large Language Models for Repo-level Vulnerability Detection
• Authors: Xin Zhou, Duc-Manh Tran, Thanh Le-Cong, Ting Zhang, Ivana Clairine Irsan, Joshua Sumarlin, Bach Le, David Lo,
• Abstract summary: Static Application Security Testing (SAST) is usually utilized to scan source code for security vulnerabilities. Deep learning (DL)-based methods have demonstrated their potential in software vulnerability detection. This paper compares 15 diverse SAST tools with 12 popular or state-of-the-art open-source LLMs in detecting software vulnerabilities.
• Score: 11.13802281700894
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Software vulnerabilities pose significant security challenges and potential risks to society, necessitating extensive efforts in automated vulnerability detection. There are two popular lines of work to address automated vulnerability detection. On one hand, Static Application Security Testing (SAST) is usually utilized to scan source code for security vulnerabilities, especially in industries. On the other hand, deep learning (DL)-based methods, especially since the introduction of large language models (LLMs), have demonstrated their potential in software vulnerability detection. However, there is no comparative study between SAST tools and LLMs, aiming to determine their effectiveness in vulnerability detection, understand the pros and cons of both SAST and LLMs, and explore the potential combination of these two families of approaches. In this paper, we compared 15 diverse SAST tools with 12 popular or state-of-the-art open-source LLMs in detecting software vulnerabilities from repositories of three popular programming languages: Java, C, and Python. The experimental results showed that SAST tools obtain low vulnerability detection rates with relatively low false positives, while LLMs can detect up 90\% to 100\% of vulnerabilities but suffer from high false positives. By further ensembling the SAST tools and LLMs, the drawbacks of both SAST tools and LLMs can be mitigated to some extent. Our analysis sheds light on both the current progress and future directions for software vulnerability detection.

Related papers

• PenHeal: A Two-Stage LLM Framework for Automated Pentesting and Optimal Remediation [18.432274815853116]
  PenHeal is a two-stage LLM-based framework designed to autonomously identify and security vulnerabilities. This paper introduces PenHeal, a two-stage LLM-based framework designed to autonomously identify and security vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T05:42:14Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilities [12.82645410161464]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T13:17:20Z)
• LLMs as Hackers: Autonomous Linux Privilege Escalation Attacks [2.7719338074999538]
  Penetration testing allows organizations to proactively identify and remediate vulnerabilities in their systems. One recent advancement in the realm of penetration testing is the utilization of Language Models (LLMs) We explore the intersection of LLMs and penetration testing to gain insight into their capabilities and challenges in the context of privilege escalation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T17:15:41Z)
• Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox [68.26587052548287]
  Language Model (LM) agents and tools enable a rich set of capabilities but also amplify potential risks. High cost of testing these agents will make it increasingly difficult to find high-stakes, long-tailed risks. We introduce ToolEmu: a framework that uses an LM to emulate tool execution and enables the testing of LM agents against a diverse range of tools and scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T17:08:02Z)
• Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection [64.67495502772866]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into various applications. We show how attackers can override original instructions and employed controls using Prompt Injection attacks. We derive a comprehensive taxonomy from a computer security perspective to systematically investigate impacts and vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T17:14:38Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.