Can LLM Prompting Serve as a Proxy for Static Analysis in Vulnerability Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.12039v3
• Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 18:10:07 GMT
• Title: Can LLM Prompting Serve as a Proxy for Static Analysis in Vulnerability Detection
• Authors: Ira Ceka, Feitong Qiao, Anik Dey, Aastha Valecha, Gail Kaiser, Baishakhi Ray,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have shown limited ability on safety-critical code tasks such as vulnerability detection.<n>We propose prompting strategies that integrate natural language instructions of vulnerabilities with contrastive chain-of-thought reasoning.<n>Our findings demonstrate that security-aware prompting techniques can be effective alternatives to the laborious, hand-crafted rules of static analyzers.
• Score: 9.269926508651091
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite their remarkable success, large language models (LLMs) have shown limited ability on safety-critical code tasks such as vulnerability detection. Typically, static analysis (SA) tools, like CodeQL, CodeGuru Security, etc., are used for vulnerability detection. SA relies on predefined, manually-crafted rules for flagging various vulnerabilities. Thus, effectiveness of SA in detecting vulnerabilities depends on human experts and is known to report high error rates. In this study we investigate whether LLM prompting can be an effective alternative to these static analyzers in the partial code setting. We propose prompting strategies that integrate natural language instructions of vulnerabilities with contrastive chain-of-thought reasoning, augmented using contrastive samples from a synthetic dataset. Our findings demonstrate that security-aware prompting techniques can be effective alternatives to the laborious, hand-crafted rules of static analyzers, which often result in high false negative rates in the partial code setting. When leveraging SOTA reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1, each of our prompting strategies exceeds the static analyzer baseline, with the best strategies improving accuracy by as much as 31.6%, F1-scores by 71.7%, pairwise accuracies by 60.4%, and reducing FNR by as much as 37.6%.

Related papers

• Multi-Agent Taint Specification Extraction for Vulnerability Detection [49.27772068704498]
  Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools using taint analysis are widely viewed as providing higher-quality vulnerability detection results.<n>We present SemTaint, a multi-agent system that strategically combines the semantic understanding of Large Language Models (LLMs) with traditional static program analysis.<n>We integrate SemTaint with CodeQL, a state-of-the-art SAST tool, and demonstrate its effectiveness by detecting 106 of 162 vulnerabilities previously undetectable by CodeQL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T21:31:51Z)
• ReasAlign: Reasoning Enhanced Safety Alignment against Prompt Injection Attack [52.17935054046577]
  We present ReasAlign, a model-level solution to improve safety alignment against indirect prompt injection attacks.<n>ReasAlign incorporates structured reasoning steps to analyze user queries, detect conflicting instructions, and preserve the continuity of the user's intended tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T08:23:38Z)
• LLM-Powered Detection of Price Manipulation in DeFi [12.59175486585742]
  Decentralized Finance (DeFi) smart contracts manage billions of dollars, making them a prime target for exploits.<n>Price manipulation vulnerabilities, often via flash loans, are a devastating class of attacks causing significant financial losses.<n>We propose PMDetector, a hybrid framework combining static analysis with Large Language Model (LLM)-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T09:13:30Z)
• VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
  VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z)
• VulSolver: Vulnerability Detection via LLM-Driven Constraint Solving [23.259666449166456]
  Traditional vulnerability detection methods rely heavily on predefined rule matching.<n>We propose a constraint-solving approach powered by large language models (LLMs)<n>We assess VULSOLVER on the Benchmark, achieving 97.85% accuracy, 97.97% F1-score, and 100% recall.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-31T14:49:48Z)
• Beyond Benchmarks: Dynamic, Automatic And Systematic Red-Teaming Agents For Trustworthy Medical Language Models [87.66870367661342]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used in AI applications in healthcare.<n>Red-teaming framework that continuously stress-test LLMs can reveal significant weaknesses in four safety-critical domains.<n>A suite of adversarial agents is applied to autonomously mutate test cases, identify/evolve unsafe-triggering strategies, and evaluate responses.<n>Our framework delivers an evolvable, scalable, and reliable safeguard for the next generation of medical AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:44:22Z)
• Paper Summary Attack: Jailbreaking LLMs through LLM Safety Papers [61.57691030102618]
  We propose a novel jailbreaking method, Paper Summary Attack (llmnamePSA)<n>It synthesizes content from either attack-focused or defense-focused LLM safety paper to construct an adversarial prompt template.<n>Experiments show significant vulnerabilities not only in base LLMs, but also in state-of-the-art reasoning model like Deepseek-R1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:33:50Z)
• SAVANT: Vulnerability Detection in Application Dependencies through Semantic-Guided Reachability Analysis [6.989158266868967]
  integration of open-source third-party library dependencies in Java development introduces significant security risks.<n>Savant combines semantic preprocessing with LLM-powered context analysis for accurate vulnerability detection.<n>Savant achieves 83.8% precision, 73.8% recall, 69.0% accuracy, and 78.5% F1-score, outperforming state-of-the-art SCA tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T19:48:13Z)
• Defending against Indirect Prompt Injection by Instruction Detection [109.30156975159561]
  InstructDetector is a novel detection-based approach that leverages the behavioral states of LLMs to identify potential IPI attacks.<n>InstructDetector achieves a detection accuracy of 99.60% in the in-domain setting and 96.90% in the out-of-domain setting, and reduces the attack success rate to just 0.03% on the BIPIA benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T13:04:45Z)
• Context-Enhanced Vulnerability Detection Based on Large Language Model [17.922081397554155]
  We propose a context-enhanced vulnerability detection approach that combines program analysis with large language models. Specifically, we use program analysis to extract contextual information at various levels of abstraction, thereby filtering out irrelevant noise. Our goal is to strike a balance between providing sufficient detail to accurately capture vulnerabilities and minimizing unnecessary complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T16:54:16Z)
• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis, Part II: Deep Thoughts by LLMs [17.497629884237647]
  BugLens is a post-refinement framework that significantly enhances static analysis precision for bug detection.<n>LLMs demonstrate promising code understanding capabilities, but their direct application to program analysis remains unreliable.<n>LLMs guide LLMs through structured reasoning steps to assess security impact and validate constraints from the source code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T02:17:06Z)
• CASTLE: Benchmarking Dataset for Static Code Analyzers and LLMs towards CWE Detection [2.5228276786940182]
  This paper introduces CASTLE, a benchmarking framework for evaluating the vulnerability detection capabilities of different methods.<n>We assess 13 static analysis tools, 10 LLMs, and 2 formal verification tools using a hand-crafted dataset of 250 micro-benchmark programs covering 25 common CWEs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T14:30:05Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise. We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• SeCodePLT: A Unified Platform for Evaluating the Security of Code GenAI [58.29510889419971]
  Existing benchmarks for evaluating the security risks and capabilities of code-generating large language models (LLMs) face several key limitations.<n>We introduce a general and scalable benchmark construction framework that begins with manually validated, high-quality seed examples and expands them via targeted mutations.<n>Applying this framework to Python, C/C++, and Java, we build SeCodePLT, a dataset of more than 5.9k samples spanning 44 CWE-based risk categories and three security capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T21:17:22Z)
• Detecting and Understanding Vulnerabilities in Language Models via Mechanistic Interpretability [44.99833362998488]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance across a wide range of tasks. LLMs in particular are known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, where an imperceptible change to the input can mislead the output of the model. We propose a method, based on Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) techniques, to guide this process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T09:55:34Z)
• 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)
• Towards Effectively Detecting and Explaining Vulnerabilities Using Large Language Models [17.96542494363619]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in comprehending complex contexts. In this paper, we conduct a study to investigate the capabilities of LLMs in both detecting and explaining vulnerabilities. Under specialized fine-tuning for vulnerability explanation, our LLMVulExp not only detects the types of vulnerabilities in the code but also analyzes the code context to generate the cause, location, and repair suggestions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T04:01:25Z)
• MirrorCheck: Efficient Adversarial Defense for Vision-Language Models [55.73581212134293]
  We propose a novel, yet elegantly simple approach for detecting adversarial samples in Vision-Language Models. Our method leverages Text-to-Image (T2I) models to generate images based on captions produced by target VLMs. Empirical evaluations conducted on different datasets validate the efficacy of our approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T15:55:04Z)
• Data Poisoning for In-context Learning [49.77204165250528]
  In-context learning (ICL) has been recognized for its innovative ability to adapt to new tasks. This paper delves into the critical issue of ICL's susceptibility to data poisoning attacks. We introduce ICLPoison, a specialized attacking framework conceived to exploit the learning mechanisms of ICL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T14:20:20Z)
• Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models [79.0183835295533]
  We introduce the first benchmark for indirect prompt injection attacks, named BIPIA, to assess the risk of such vulnerabilities. Our analysis identifies two key factors contributing to their success: LLMs' inability to distinguish between informational context and actionable instructions, and their lack of awareness in avoiding the execution of instructions within external content. We propose two novel defense mechanisms-boundary awareness and explicit reminder-to address these vulnerabilities in both black-box and white-box settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T01:08:39Z)
• 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)
• Token-Level Adversarial Prompt Detection Based on Perplexity Measures and Contextual Information [67.78183175605761]
  Large Language Models are susceptible to adversarial prompt attacks. This vulnerability underscores a significant concern regarding the robustness and reliability of LLMs. We introduce a novel approach to detecting adversarial prompts at a token level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T03:17:21Z)
• 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)

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.