Large Language Models Cannot Reliably Detect Vulnerabilities in JavaScript: The First Systematic Benchmark and Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01255v1
• Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 04:00:06 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Cannot Reliably Detect Vulnerabilities in JavaScript: The First Systematic Benchmark and Evaluation
• Authors: Qingyuan Fei, Xin Liu, Song Li, Shujiang Wu, Jianwei Hou, Ping Chen, Zifeng Kang,
• Abstract summary: We introduce three principles for constructing a benchmark for JavaScript vulnerability detection.<n>For the first time, we propose FORGEJS, the first automatic benchmark generation framework.<n>We conduct the first systematic evaluation of Large Language Models for JavaScript vulnerability detection.
• Score: 8.85349227459794
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Researchers have proposed numerous methods to detect vulnerabilities in JavaScript, especially those assisted by Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the actual capability of LLMs in JavaScript vulnerability detection remains questionable, necessitating systematic evaluation and comprehensive benchmarks. Unfortunately, existing benchmarks suffer from three critical limitations: (1) incomplete coverage, such as covering a limited subset of CWE types; (2) underestimation of LLM capabilities caused by unreasonable ground truth labeling; and (3) overestimation due to unrealistic cases such as using isolated vulnerable files rather than complete projects. In this paper, we introduce, for the first time, three principles for constructing a benchmark for JavaScript vulnerability detection that directly address these limitations: (1) comprehensiveness, (2) no underestimation, and (3) no overestimation. Guided by these principles, we propose FORGEJS, the first automatic benchmark generation framework for evaluating LLMs' capability in JavaScript vulnerability detection. Then, we use FORGEJS to construct ARENAJS-the first systematic benchmark for LLM-based JavaScript vulnerability detection-and further propose JUDGEJS, an automatic evaluation framework. We conduct the first systematic evaluation of LLMs for JavaScript vulnerability detection, leveraging JUDGEJS to assess seven popular commercial LLMs on ARENAJS. The results show that LLMs not only exhibit limited reasoning capabilities, but also suffer from severe robustness defects, indicating that reliable JavaScript vulnerability detection with LLMs remains an open challenge.

Related papers

• The Vulnerability of LLM Rankers to Prompt Injection Attacks [40.03039307576983]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful re-rankers.<n>Recent research has showed that simple prompt injections embedded within a candidate document can significantly alter an LLM's ranking decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T06:19:08Z)
• A Prompt-Based Framework for Loop Vulnerability Detection Using Local LLMs [0.0]
  This study proposes a prompt-based framework for the detection of loop vulnerabilities within Python 3.7+ code.<n>The framework targets three categories of loop-related issues, such as control and logic errors, security risks inside loops, and resource management inefficiencies.<n>The designed prompt-based framework included key safeguarding features such as language-specific awareness, code-aware grounding, version sensitivity, and hallucination prevention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T04:53:38Z)
• JsDeObsBench: Measuring and Benchmarking LLMs for JavaScript Deobfuscation [34.88009582470047]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown promise in automating the deobfuscation process.<n>We present JsDeObsBench, a benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in the context of JS deobfuscation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T06:50:13Z)
• 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.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>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)
• Benchmarking LLMs and LLM-based Agents in Practical Vulnerability Detection for Code Repositories [8.583591493627276]
  We introduce JitVul, a vulnerability detection benchmark linking each function to its vulnerability-introducing and fixing commits.<n>We show that ReAct Agents, leveraging thought-action-observation and interprocedural context, perform better than LLMs in distinguishing vulnerable from benign code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T15:22:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses.<n>Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies.<n>We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• 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)
• 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.<n>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.<n>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)
• 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)
• Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
  This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames. It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z)

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.