CWEval: Outcome-driven Evaluation on Functionality and Security of LLM Code Generation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08200v1
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:27:01 GMT
- Title: CWEval: Outcome-driven Evaluation on Functionality and Security of LLM Code Generation
- Authors: Jinjun Peng, Leyi Cui, Kele Huang, Junfeng Yang, Baishakhi Ray,
- Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly aided developers by generating or assisting in code writing.
detecting vulnerabilities in functionally correct code is more challenging, especially for developers with limited security knowledge.
We introduce CWEval, a novel outcome-driven evaluation framework designed to enhance the evaluation of secure code generation by LLMs.
- Score: 20.72188827088484
- License:
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly aided developers by generating or assisting in code writing, enhancing productivity across various tasks. While identifying incorrect code is often straightforward, detecting vulnerabilities in functionally correct code is more challenging, especially for developers with limited security knowledge, which poses considerable security risks of using LLM-generated code and underscores the need for robust evaluation benchmarks that assess both functional correctness and security. Current benchmarks like CyberSecEval and SecurityEval attempt to solve it but are hindered by unclear and impractical specifications, failing to assess both functionality and security accurately. To tackle these deficiencies, we introduce CWEval, a novel outcome-driven evaluation framework designed to enhance the evaluation of secure code generation by LLMs. This framework not only assesses code functionality but also its security simultaneously with high-quality task specifications and outcome-driven test oracles which provides high accuracy. Coupled with CWEval-bench, a multilingual, security-critical coding benchmark, CWEval provides a rigorous empirical security evaluation on LLM-generated code, overcoming previous benchmarks' shortcomings. Through our evaluations, CWEval reveals a notable portion of functional but insecure code produced by LLMs, and shows a serious inaccuracy of previous evaluations, ultimately contributing significantly to the field of secure code generation. We open-source our artifact at: https://github.com/Co1lin/CWEval .
Related papers
- SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models [75.67623347512368]
We propose toolns, a comprehensive framework designed for conducting safety evaluations of MLLMs.
Our framework consists of a comprehensive harmful query dataset and an automated evaluation protocol.
Based on our framework, we conducted large-scale experiments on 15 widely-used open-source MLLMs and 6 commercial MLLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-24T17:14:40Z) - HexaCoder: Secure Code Generation via Oracle-Guided Synthetic Training Data [60.75578581719921]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for automatic code generation.
Recent studies highlight that many LLM-generated code contains serious security vulnerabilities.
We introduce HexaCoder, a novel approach to enhance the ability of LLMs to generate secure codes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-10T12:01:43Z) - Is Your AI-Generated Code Really Safe? Evaluating Large Language Models on Secure Code Generation with CodeSecEval [20.959848710829878]
Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant advancements to code generation and code repair.
However, their training using unsanitized data from open-source repositories, like GitHub, raises the risk of inadvertently propagating security vulnerabilities.
We aim to present a comprehensive study aimed at precisely evaluating and enhancing the security aspects of code LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-02T16:13:21Z) - 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) - 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) - 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) - SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models [107.82336341926134]
SALAD-Bench is a safety benchmark specifically designed for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs)
It transcends conventional benchmarks through its large scale, rich diversity, intricate taxonomy spanning three levels, and versatile functionalities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-07T17:33:54Z) - An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles and Influential Factors [9.309745288471374]
Security code review is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process.
Existing security analysis tools struggle with poor generalization, high false positive rates, and coarse detection granularity.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been considered promising candidates for addressing those challenges.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-29T17:13:44Z) - SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Code [0.5137309756089941]
This paper describes SALLM, a framework to benchmark Large Language Models' abilities to generate secure code systematically.
The framework has three major components: a novel dataset of security-centric Python prompts, assessment techniques to evaluate the generated code, and novel metrics to evaluate the models' performance from the perspective of secure code generation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-01T22:46:31Z) - Enhancing Large Language Models for Secure Code Generation: A
Dataset-driven Study on Vulnerability Mitigation [24.668682498171776]
Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant advancements to code generation, benefiting both novice and experienced developers.
However, their training using unsanitized data from open-source repositories, like GitHub, introduces the risk of inadvertently propagating security vulnerabilities.
This paper presents a comprehensive study focused on evaluating and enhancing code LLMs from a software security perspective.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-25T00:32:56Z) - 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)
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.