GitHub's Copilot Code Review: Can AI Spot Security Flaws Before You Commit?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13650v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 02:56:21 GMT
• Title: GitHub's Copilot Code Review: Can AI Spot Security Flaws Before You Commit?
• Authors: Amena Amro, Manar H. Alalfi,
• Abstract summary: This study evaluates the effectiveness of GitHub Copilot's recently introduced code review feature in detecting security vulnerabilities.<n>Contrary to expectations, our results reveal that Copilot's code review frequently fails to detect critical vulnerabilities.<n>Our results highlight the continued necessity of dedicated security tools and manual code audits to ensure robust software security.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As software development practices increasingly adopt AI-powered tools, ensuring that such tools can support secure coding has become critical. This study evaluates the effectiveness of GitHub Copilot's recently introduced code review feature in detecting security vulnerabilities. Using a curated set of labeled vulnerable code samples drawn from diverse open-source projects spanning multiple programming languages and application domains, we systematically assessed Copilot's ability to identify and provide feedback on common security flaws. Contrary to expectations, our results reveal that Copilot's code review frequently fails to detect critical vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and insecure deserialization. Instead, its feedback primarily addresses low-severity issues, such as coding style and typographical errors. These findings expose a significant gap between the perceived capabilities of AI-assisted code review and its actual effectiveness in supporting secure development practices. Our results highlight the continued necessity of dedicated security tools and manual code audits to ensure robust software security.

Related papers

• Secure Code Generation via Online Reinforcement Learning with Vulnerability Reward Model [60.60587869092729]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software development, yet their tendency to generate insecure code remains a major barrier to real-world deployment.<n>We propose SecCoderX, an online reinforcement learning framework for functionality-preserving secure code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T07:42:07Z)
• RealSec-bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Secure Code Generation in Real-World Repositories [58.32028251925354]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code generation, but their proficiency in producing secure code remains a critical, under-explored area.<n>We introduce RealSec-bench, a new benchmark for secure code generation meticulously constructed from real-world, high-risk Java repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T08:29:01Z)
• Towards Trustworthy GUI Agents: A Survey [64.6445117343499]
  This survey examines the trustworthiness of GUI agents in five critical dimensions.<n>We identify major challenges such as vulnerability to adversarial attacks, cascading failure modes in sequential decision-making.<n>As GUI agents become more widespread, establishing robust safety standards and responsible development practices is essential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T13:26:00Z)
• RedCode: Risky Code Execution and Generation Benchmark for Code Agents [50.81206098588923]
  RedCode is a benchmark for risky code execution and generation. RedCode-Exec provides challenging prompts that could lead to risky code execution. RedCode-Gen provides 160 prompts with function signatures and docstrings as input to assess whether code agents will follow instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T13:30:06Z)
• Fixing Security Vulnerabilities with AI in OSS-Fuzz [9.730566646484304]
  OSS-Fuzz is the most significant and widely used infrastructure for continuous validation of open source systems. We customise the well-known AutoCodeRover agent for fixing security vulnerabilities. Our experience with OSS-Fuzz vulnerability data shows that LLM agent autonomy is useful for successful security patching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T16:20:32Z)
• Toward Effective Secure Code Reviews: An Empirical Study of Security-Related Coding Weaknesses [14.134803943492345]
  We conducted an empirical case study in two large open-source projects, OpenSSL and PHP. Based on 135,560 code review comments, we found that reviewers raised security concerns in 35 out of 40 coding weakness categories. Some coding weaknesses related to past vulnerabilities, such as memory errors and resource management, were discussed less often than the vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T00:49:00Z)
• Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot Generated Code -- A Targeted Replication Study [11.644996472213611]
  Recent studies have investigated security issues in AI-powered code generation tools such as GitHub Copilot and Amazon CodeWhisperer. This paper replicates the study of Pearce et al., which investigated security weaknesses in Copilot and uncovered several weaknesses in the code suggested by Copilot. Our results indicate that, even with the improvements in newer versions of Copilot, the percentage of vulnerable code suggestions has reduced from 36.54% to 27.25%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T22:12:59Z)
• Security Weaknesses of Copilot-Generated Code in GitHub Projects: An Empirical Study [8.364612094301071]
  We analyze code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot and two other AI code generation tools from GitHub projects.<n>Our analysis identified 733 snippets, revealing a high likelihood of security weaknesses, with 29.5% of Python and 24.2% of JavaScript snippets affected.<n>We provide suggestions for mitigating security issues in generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T14:01:28Z)
• Security Defect Detection via Code Review: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities [7.2944322548786715]
  Security defects are not prevalently discussed in code review. More than half of the reviewers provided explicit fixing strategies/solutions to help developers fix security defects. Disagreement between the developer and the reviewer are the main causes for not resolving security defects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T14:30:41Z)
• Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions [54.55334589363247]
  We study whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:43:34Z)
• 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)
• Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer Security [74.1816306998445]
  Despite great potential, machine learning in security is prone to subtle pitfalls that undermine its performance. We identify common pitfalls in the design, implementation, and evaluation of learning-based security systems. We propose actionable recommendations to support researchers in avoiding or mitigating the pitfalls where possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T13:09:31Z)

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.