RMCBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Resistance to Malicious Code

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15154v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:03:26 GMT
• Title: RMCBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Resistance to Malicious Code
• Authors: Jiachi Chen, Qingyuan Zhong, Yanlin Wang, Kaiwen Ning, Yongkun Liu, Zenan Xu, Zhe Zhao, Ting Chen, Zibin Zheng,
• Abstract summary: There is no research evaluating the ability of LLMs to resist malicious code generation. We conduct an empirical study on 11 representative LLMs to assess their ability to resist malicious code generation. Our findings indicate that current LLMs have a limited ability to resist malicious code generation with an average refusal rate of 40.36% in text-to-code scenario and 11.52% in code-to-code scenario.
• Score: 30.244754704562162
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly influenced various aspects of software development activities. Despite their benefits, LLMs also pose notable risks, including the potential to generate harmful content and being abused by malicious developers to create malicious code. Several previous studies have focused on the ability of LLMs to resist the generation of harmful content that violates human ethical standards, such as biased or offensive content. However, there is no research evaluating the ability of LLMs to resist malicious code generation. To fill this gap, we propose RMCBench, the first benchmark comprising 473 prompts designed to assess the ability of LLMs to resist malicious code generation. This benchmark employs two scenarios: a text-to-code scenario, where LLMs are prompted with descriptions to generate code, and a code-to-code scenario, where LLMs translate or complete existing malicious code. Based on RMCBench, we conduct an empirical study on 11 representative LLMs to assess their ability to resist malicious code generation. Our findings indicate that current LLMs have a limited ability to resist malicious code generation with an average refusal rate of 40.36% in text-to-code scenario and 11.52% in code-to-code scenario. The average refusal rate of all LLMs in RMCBench is only 28.71%; ChatGPT-4 has a refusal rate of only 35.73%. We also analyze the factors that affect LLMs' ability to resist malicious code generation and provide implications for developers to enhance model robustness.

Related papers

• Comparing Robustness Against Adversarial Attacks in Code Generation: LLM-Generated vs. Human-Written [11.16693333878553]
  This paper introduces an empirical study to evaluate the adversarial robustness of Pre-trained Models of Code (PTMCs) fine-tuned on code written by humans. We consider two datasets, two state-of-the-art PTMCs, two robustness evaluation criteria, and three metrics to use in our experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T20:25:32Z)
• Probing the Safety Response Boundary of Large Language Models via Unsafe Decoding Path Generation [44.09578786678573]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are implicit troublemakers. LLMs could be used to gather harmful data or launch covert attacks. We name this decoding strategy: Jailbreak Value Decoding (JVD)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T09:11:21Z)
• MCGMark: An Encodable and Robust Online Watermark for LLM-Generated Malicious Code [33.86980891690121]
  We propose MCGMark, the first robust, code structure-aware, and encodable watermarking approach to trace LLM-generated code. MCGMark achieves an embedding success rate of 88.9% within a maximum output limit of 400 tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T16:04:52Z)
• 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)
• Can We Trust Large Language Models Generated Code? A Framework for In-Context Learning, Security Patterns, and Code Evaluations Across Diverse LLMs [2.7138982369416866]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized automated code generation in software engineering. However, concerns have arisen regarding the security and quality of the generated code. Our research aims to tackle these issues by introducing a framework for secure behavioral learning of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T11:29:34Z)
• 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)
• InfiBench: Evaluating the Question-Answering Capabilities of Code Large Language Models [56.723509505549536]
  InfiBench is the first large-scale freeform question-answering (QA) benchmark for code to our knowledge. It comprises 234 carefully selected high-quality Stack Overflow questions that span across 15 programming languages. We conduct a systematic evaluation for over 100 latest code LLMs on InfiBench, leading to a series of novel and insightful findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T02:06:30Z)
• Assured LLM-Based Software Engineering [51.003878077888686]
  This paper is an outline of the content of the keynote by Mark Harman at the International Workshop on Interpretability, Robustness, and Benchmarking in Neural Software Engineering, Monday 15th April 2024, Lisbon, Portugal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T20:38:46Z)
• If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code) Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z)
• DeceptPrompt: Exploiting LLM-driven Code Generation via Adversarial Natural Language Instructions [27.489622263456983]
  We introduce DeceptPrompt, an algorithm that can generate adversarial natural language instructions that drive the Code LLMs to generate functionality correct code with vulnerabilities. When applying the optimized prefix/suffix, the attack success rate (ASR) will improve by average 50% compared with no prefix/suffix applying.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T22:19:06Z)

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.