Large Language Models for Secure Code Assessment: A Multi-Language Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06428v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 18:10:11 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models for Secure Code Assessment: A Multi-Language Empirical Study
• Authors: Kohei Dozono, Tiago Espinha Gasiba, Andrea Stocco,
• Abstract summary: We show that GPT-4o achieves the highest vulnerability detection and CWE classification scores using a few-shot setting. We develop a library called CODEGUARDIAN integrated with VSCode which enables developers to perform LLM-assisted real-time vulnerability analysis.
• Score: 1.9116784879310031
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Most vulnerability detection studies focus on datasets of vulnerabilities in C/C++ code, offering limited language diversity. Thus, the effectiveness of deep learning methods, including large language models (LLMs), in detecting software vulnerabilities beyond these languages is still largely unexplored. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in detecting and classifying Common Weakness Enumerations (CWE) using different prompt and role strategies. Our experimental study targets six state-of-the-art pre-trained LLMs (GPT-3.5- Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, CodeLLama-7B, CodeLLama- 13B, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) and five programming languages: Python, C, C++, Java, and JavaScript. We compiled a multi-language vulnerability dataset from different sources, to ensure representativeness. Our results showed that GPT-4o achieves the highest vulnerability detection and CWE classification scores using a few-shot setting. Aside from the quantitative results of our study, we developed a library called CODEGUARDIAN integrated with VSCode which enables developers to perform LLM-assisted real-time vulnerability analysis in real-world security scenarios. We have evaluated CODEGUARDIAN with a user study involving 22 developers from the industry. Our study showed that, by using CODEGUARDIAN, developers are more accurate and faster at detecting vulnerabilities.

Related papers

• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• An Empirical Study of Automated Vulnerability Localization with Large Language Models [21.84971967029474]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential in various domains, yet their effectiveness in vulnerability localization remains underexplored. Our investigation encompasses 10+ leading LLMs suitable for code analysis, including ChatGPT and various open-source models. We explore the efficacy of these LLMs using 4 distinct paradigms: zero-shot learning, one-shot learning, discriminative fine-tuning, and generative fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T08:42:10Z)
• 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]
  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)
• Can Large Language Models Find And Fix Vulnerable Software? [0.0]
  GPT-4 identified approximately four times the vulnerabilities than its counterparts. It provided viable fixes for each vulnerability, demonstrating a low rate of false positives. GPT-4's code corrections led to a 90% reduction in vulnerabilities, requiring only an 11% increase in code lines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T19:33:12Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Models [86.02610674750345]
  Adversarial GLUE (AdvGLUE) is a new multi-task benchmark to explore and evaluate the vulnerabilities of modern large-scale language models under various types of adversarial attacks. We apply 14 adversarial attack methods to GLUE tasks to construct AdvGLUE, which is further validated by humans for reliable annotations. All the language models and robust training methods we tested perform poorly on AdvGLUE, with scores lagging far behind the benign accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-04T12:59:55Z)

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.