Do Neutral Prompts Produce Insecure Code? FormAI-v2 Dataset: Labelling Vulnerabilities in Code Generated by Large Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates whether "neutral prompts" (non-security-focused prompts) can lead to the generation of insecure code by large language models (LLMs).
- The authors introduce the FormAI-v2 dataset, which includes code samples generated by LLMs in response to various prompts and annotations of security vulnerabilities in that code.
- The study aims to assess the security implications of using LLMs for code generation and provide insights to improve the safety of LLM-generated code.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines whether large language models can generate insecure code even when they are not given prompts specifically focused on security. The researchers created a dataset called FormAI-v2 that contains code samples generated by language models in response to various prompts, along with annotations identifying security vulnerabilities in that code.
The goal of the study is to understand the security implications of using language models to generate code, and to find ways to improve the safety and security of the code produced by these models. Even if a language model is not asked to generate code with security vulnerabilities, the researchers wanted to see if it might still produce insecure code unintentionally.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents the FormAI-v2 dataset, which consists of code samples generated by large language models in response to a variety of prompts, both security-focused and "neutral" (non-security-focused). The authors then had human experts annotate the code samples to identify security vulnerabilities, such as cross-site scripting (XSS) and SQL injection.
The study analyzed the prevalence of vulnerabilities in the code generated by language models in response to the different types of prompts. The results suggest that even when using "neutral" prompts, language models can still generate code with significant security vulnerabilities. The authors also found that the specific prompt used can have a significant impact on the security of the generated code.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the security implications of using large language models for code generation, but there are some potential limitations and areas for further research:
- The dataset is relatively small, and it would be beneficial to expand the study to a larger and more diverse set of prompts and generated code samples.
- The annotation of vulnerabilities was done by human experts, which could introduce some subjectivity. Automated vulnerability detection tools could be used to provide a more objective assessment.
- The paper does not explore the potential reasons why "neutral" prompts can lead to insecure code generation, such as biases in the language model's training data or limitations in its understanding of security concepts. Further research could delve into these underlying factors.
- The study focused on a specific set of security vulnerabilities, but there may be other types of vulnerabilities that were not considered. A more comprehensive evaluation of security risks would be valuable.
Overall, the paper provides important evidence that the security of LLM-generated code cannot be taken for granted, even when using "neutral" prompts. Continued research and development in this area will be crucial to ensuring the safe and secure deployment of these powerful language models in real-world applications.
Conclusion
This paper presents the FormAI-v2 dataset and explores the security implications of using large language models for code generation. The findings suggest that even when using "neutral" prompts, language models can still produce code with significant security vulnerabilities, highlighting the need for further research and development to improve the security of LLM-generated code. As the use of these models in real-world applications continues to grow, ensuring the safety and security of the code they generate will be a critical priority for the field.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Do Neutral Prompts Produce Insecure Code? FormAI-v2 Dataset: Labelling Vulnerabilities in Code Generated by Large Language Models
Norbert Tihanyi, Tamas Bisztray, Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Ridhi Jain, Lucas C. Cordeiro
This study provides a comparative analysis of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), analyzing how likely they generate vulnerabilities when writing simple C programs using a neutral zero-shot prompt. We address a significant gap in the literature concerning the security properties of code produced by these models without specific directives. N. Tihanyi et al. introduced the FormAI dataset at PROMISE '23, containing 112,000 GPT-3.5-generated C programs, with over 51.24% identified as vulnerable. We expand that work by introducing the FormAI-v2 dataset comprising 265,000 compilable C programs generated using various LLMs, including robust models such as Google's GEMINI-pro, OpenAI's GPT-4, and TII's 180 billion-parameter Falcon, to Meta's specialized 13 billion-parameter CodeLLama2 and various other compact models. Each program in the dataset is labelled based on the vulnerabilities detected in its source code through formal verification using the Efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC). This technique eliminates false positives by delivering a counterexample and ensures the exclusion of false negatives by completing the verification process. Our study reveals that at least 63.47% of the generated programs are vulnerable. The differences between the models are minor, as they all display similar coding errors with slight variations. Our research highlights that while LLMs offer promising capabilities for code generation, deploying their output in a production environment requires risk assessment and validation.
Read more4/30/2024
0
Prompting Techniques for Secure Code Generation: A Systematic Investigation
Catherine Tony, Nicol'as E. D'iaz Ferreyra, Markus Mutas, Salem Dhiff, Riccardo Scandariato
Large Language Models (LLMs) are gaining momentum in software development with prompt-driven programming enabling developers to create code from natural language (NL) instructions. However, studies have questioned their ability to produce secure code and, thereby, the quality of prompt-generated software. Alongside, various prompting techniques that carefully tailor prompts have emerged to elicit optimal responses from LLMs. Still, the interplay between such prompting strategies and secure code generation remains under-explored and calls for further investigations. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigate the impact of different prompting techniques on the security of code generated from NL instructions by LLMs. METHOD: First we perform a systematic literature review to identify the existing prompting techniques that can be used for code generation tasks. A subset of these techniques are evaluated on GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 models for secure code generation. For this, we used an existing dataset consisting of 150 NL security-relevant code-generation prompts. RESULTS: Our work (i) classifies potential prompting techniques for code generation (ii) adapts and evaluates a subset of the identified techniques for secure code generation tasks and (iii) observes a reduction in security weaknesses across the tested LLMs, especially after using an existing technique called Recursive Criticism and Improvement (RCI), contributing valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on LLM-generated code security.
Read more7/10/2024
💬
0
You still have to study -- On the Security of LLM generated code
Stefan Goetz, Andreas Schaad
We witness an increasing usage of AI-assistants even for routine (classroom) programming tasks. However, the code generated on basis of a so called prompt by the programmer does not always meet accepted security standards. On the one hand, this may be due to lack of best-practice examples in the training data. On the other hand, the actual quality of the programmers prompt appears to influence whether generated code contains weaknesses or not. In this paper we analyse 4 major LLMs with respect to the security of generated code. We do this on basis of a case study for the Python and Javascript language, using the MITRE CWE catalogue as the guiding security definition. Our results show that using different prompting techniques, some LLMs initially generate 65% code which is deemed insecure by a trained security engineer. On the other hand almost all analysed LLMs will eventually generate code being close to 100% secure with increasing manual guidance of a skilled engineer.
Read more8/15/2024
0
Validating LLM-Generated Programs with Metamorphic Prompt Testing
Xiaoyin Wang, Dakai Zhu
The latest paradigm shift in software development brings in the innovation and automation afforded by Large Language Models (LLMs), showcased by Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), which has shown remarkable capacity to generate code autonomously, significantly reducing the manual effort required for various programming tasks. Although, the potential benefits of LLM-generated code are vast, most notably in efficiency and rapid prototyping, as LLMs become increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle and hence the supply chain, complex and multifaceted challenges arise as the code generated from these language models carry profound questions on quality and correctness. Research is required to comprehensively explore these critical concerns surrounding LLM-generated code. In this paper, we propose a novel solution called metamorphic prompt testing to address these challenges. Our intuitive observation is that intrinsic consistency always exists among correct code pieces but may not exist among flawed code pieces, so we can detect flaws in the code by detecting inconsistencies. Therefore, we can vary a given prompt to multiple prompts with paraphrasing, and to ask the LLM to acquire multiple versions of generated code, so that we can validate whether the semantic relations still hold in the acquired code through cross-validation. Our evaluation on HumanEval shows that metamorphic prompt testing is able to detect 75 percent of the erroneous programs generated by GPT-4, with a false positive rate of 8.6 percent.
Read more6/12/2024