CASTLE: Benchmarking Dataset for Static Code Analyzers and LLMs towards CWE Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09433v2
• Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:07:10 GMT
• Title: CASTLE: Benchmarking Dataset for Static Code Analyzers and LLMs towards CWE Detection
• Authors: Richard A. Dubniczky, Krisztofer Zoltán Horvát, Tamás Bisztray, Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Lucas C. Cordeiro, Norbert Tihanyi,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 2.5228276786940182
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Identifying vulnerabilities in source code is crucial, especially in critical software components. Existing methods such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, formal verification, and recently Large Language Models are widely used to detect security flaws. This paper introduces CASTLE (CWE Automated Security Testing and Low-Level Evaluation), a benchmarking framework for evaluating the vulnerability detection capabilities of different methods. 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. We propose the CASTLE Score, a novel evaluation metric to ensure fair comparison. Our results reveal key differences: ESBMC (a formal verification tool) minimizes false positives but struggles with vulnerabilities beyond model checking, such as weak cryptography or SQL injection. Static analyzers suffer from high false positives, increasing manual validation efforts for developers. LLMs perform exceptionally well in the CASTLE dataset when identifying vulnerabilities in small code snippets. However, their accuracy declines, and hallucinations increase as the code size grows. These results suggest that LLMs could play a pivotal role in future security solutions, particularly within code completion frameworks, where they can provide real-time guidance to prevent vulnerabilities. The dataset is accessible at https://github.com/CASTLE-Benchmark.

Related papers

• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection. Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities? This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis, Part II: Deep Thoughts by LLMs [17.497629884237647]
  BugLens is a post-refinement framework that significantly improves static analysis precision. It raises precision from 0.10 (raw) and 0.50 (semi-automated refinement) to 0.72, substantially reducing false positives. Our results suggest that a structured LLM-based workflow can meaningfully enhance the effectiveness of static analysis tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T02:17:06Z)
• PredictaBoard: Benchmarking LLM Score Predictability [50.47497036981544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably. This poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment. We present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T10:52:38Z)
• VulnLLMEval: A Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models in Software Vulnerability Detection and Patching [0.9208007322096533]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in tasks like code translation. This paper introduces VulnLLMEval, a framework designed to assess the performance of LLMs in identifying and patching vulnerabilities in C code. Our study includes 307 real-world vulnerabilities extracted from the Linux kernel.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T22:00:20Z)
• 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)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilities [14.188864624736938]
  Large language models (or LLMs) have shown impressive code generation capabilities but they cannot do complex reasoning over code to detect such vulnerabilities. We propose IRIS, a neuro-symbolic approach that systematically combines LLMs with static analysis to perform whole-repository reasoning for security vulnerability detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T14:53:35Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
  This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• 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)

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.