Is Your AI-Generated Code Really Safe? Evaluating Large Language Models on Secure Code Generation with CodeSecEval
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper evaluates the security of code generated by large language models (LLMs) using a new dataset called CodeSecEval.
- The researchers assess how well LLMs can generate secure code and identify common security vulnerabilities.
- They find that while LLMs can generate functional code, they often introduce security vulnerabilities that humans would not.
- The paper highlights the need for better security evaluation and mitigation when using LLMs for code generation.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text, including computer code. However, the security of this AI-generated code has been a concern. This paper evaluates the security of code generated by LLMs using a new dataset called CodeSecEval.
The researchers tested how well LLMs could generate secure code and identify common security vulnerabilities, like buffer overflows or SQL injection flaws. They found that while the LLMs could generate functional code, they often introduced security vulnerabilities that a human programmer would not. This highlights the need for better security evaluation and mitigation when using LLMs for code generation.
The paper is important because as LLMs become more capable at generating code, it's crucial to understand their security limitations. Insecure AI-generated code could pose real risks if deployed in production systems. This research helps shed light on the security challenges of relying on LLMs for sensitive coding tasks.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces CodeSecEval, a new dataset designed to evaluate the security of code generated by large language models (LLMs). The dataset contains over 100,000 code samples with known security vulnerabilities, which the researchers used to test how well different LLMs could identify and avoid introducing these flaws.
The experiments involved fine-tuning several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3 and CodeT5, on the CodeSecEval dataset. The models were then tasked with generating code snippets and assessing their security. The researchers measured metrics like the prevalence of security vulnerabilities in the generated code, as well as the models' ability to detect flaws in existing code.
The results show that while the LLMs could produce functional code, they often introduced security vulnerabilities that a human programmer would not. For example, the models struggled to avoid common issues like buffer overflows, SQL injection, and use-after-free errors. This suggests that current LLM-based code generation systems may not be suitable for security-critical applications without additional security-focused training and evaluation.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution by highlighting the security limitations of using LLMs for code generation. The authors acknowledge that their study is limited to a specific dataset and set of LLMs, and that further research is needed to generalize the findings.
One potential concern is the reliance on automated security analysis tools, which may not capture the full scope of security vulnerabilities. Human security experts may be able to identify more subtle or complex flaws that the tools miss. Additional research incorporating manual security audits could provide a more comprehensive evaluation.
The paper also does not explore potential mitigation strategies, such as fine-tuning LLMs on secure coding practices or combining LLM-generated code with human review. Investigating ways to improve the security of LLM-generated code could be a valuable area for future work.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the security risks of relying on large language models (LLMs) for code generation. While LLMs can produce functional code, they often introduce security vulnerabilities that a human programmer would not. The researchers' new CodeSecEval dataset and evaluation approach provide a valuable tool for understanding the security limitations of current LLM-based code generation systems.
As LLMs become more capable at generating code, it will be crucial to address these security challenges. Improving the security of AI-generated code could have significant implications for the deployment of LLMs in safety-critical applications. This research represents an important step towards understanding and mitigating the security risks of relying on LLMs for sensitive coding tasks.
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
Is Your AI-Generated Code Really Safe? Evaluating Large Language Models on Secure Code Generation with CodeSecEval
Jiexin Wang, Xitong Luo, Liuwen Cao, Hongkui He, Hailin Huang, Jiayuan Xie, Adam Jatowt, Yi Cai
Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant advancements to code generation and code repair, benefiting both novice and experienced developers. However, their training using unsanitized data from open-source repositories, like GitHub, raises the risk of inadvertently propagating security vulnerabilities. Despite numerous studies investigating the safety of code LLMs, there remains a gap in comprehensively addressing their security features. In this work, we aim to present a comprehensive study aimed at precisely evaluating and enhancing the security aspects of code LLMs. To support our research, we introduce CodeSecEval, a meticulously curated dataset designed to address 44 critical vulnerability types with 180 distinct samples. CodeSecEval serves as the foundation for the automatic evaluation of code models in two crucial tasks: code generation and code repair, with a strong emphasis on security. Our experimental results reveal that current models frequently overlook security issues during both code generation and repair processes, resulting in the creation of vulnerable code. In response, we propose different strategies that leverage vulnerability-aware information and insecure code explanations to mitigate these security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, our findings highlight that certain vulnerability types particularly challenge model performance, influencing their effectiveness in real-world applications. Based on these findings, we believe our study will have a positive impact on the software engineering community, inspiring the development of improved methods for training and utilizing LLMs, thereby leading to safer and more trustworthy model deployment.
Read more7/8/2024
0
LLMSecCode: Evaluating Large Language Models for Secure Coding
Anton Ryd'en, Erik Naslund, Elad Michael Schiller, Magnus Almgren
The rapid deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires careful consideration of their effect on cybersecurity. Our work aims to improve the selection process of LLMs that are suitable for facilitating Secure Coding (SC). This raises challenging research questions, such as (RQ1) Which functionality can streamline the LLM evaluation? (RQ2) What should the evaluation measure? (RQ3) How to attest that the evaluation process is impartial? To address these questions, we introduce LLMSecCode, an open-source evaluation framework designed to assess LLM SC capabilities objectively. We validate the LLMSecCode implementation through experiments. When varying parameters and prompts, we find a 10% and 9% difference in performance, respectively. We also compare some results to reliable external actors, where our results show a 5% difference. We strive to ensure the ease of use of our open-source framework and encourage further development by external actors. With LLMSecCode, we hope to encourage the standardization and benchmarking of LLMs' capabilities in security-oriented code and tasks.
Read more8/30/2024
🤷
1
Generate and Pray: Using SALLMS to Evaluate the Security of LLM Generated Code
Mohammed Latif Siddiq, Joanna C. S. Santos, Sajith Devareddy, Anna Muller
With the growing popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineers' daily practices, it is important to ensure that the code generated by these tools is not only functionally correct but also free of vulnerabilities. Although LLMs can help developers to be more productive, prior empirical studies have shown that LLMs can generate insecure code. There are two contributing factors to the insecure code generation. First, existing datasets used to evaluate LLMs do not adequately represent genuine software engineering tasks sensitive to security. Instead, they are often based on competitive programming challenges or classroom-type coding tasks. In real-world applications, the code produced is integrated into larger codebases, introducing potential security risks. Second, existing evaluation metrics primarily focus on the functional correctness of the generated code while ignoring security considerations. Therefore, in this paper, we described SALLM, a framework to benchmark LLMs' abilities to generate secure code systematically. This framework has three major components: a novel dataset of security-centric Python prompts, configurable assessment techniques to evaluate the generated code, and novel metrics to evaluate the models' performance from the perspective of secure code generation.
Read more9/6/2024
0
Exploring Safety Generalization Challenges of Large Language Models via Code
Qibing Ren, Chang Gao, Jing Shao, Junchi Yan, Xin Tan, Wai Lam, Lizhuang Ma
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has brought about remarkable generative capabilities but also raised concerns about their potential misuse. While strategies like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback have enhanced their safety, these methods primarily focus on natural languages, which may not generalize to other domains. This paper introduces CodeAttack, a framework that transforms natural language inputs into code inputs, presenting a novel environment for testing the safety generalization of LLMs. Our comprehensive studies on state-of-the-art LLMs including GPT-4, Claude-2, and Llama-2 series reveal a new and universal safety vulnerability of these models against code input: CodeAttack bypasses the safety guardrails of all models more than 80% of the time. We find that a larger distribution gap between CodeAttack and natural language leads to weaker safety generalization, such as encoding natural language input with data structures. Furthermore, we give our hypotheses about the success of CodeAttack: the misaligned bias acquired by LLMs during code training, prioritizing code completion over avoiding the potential safety risk. Finally, we analyze potential mitigation measures. These findings highlight new safety risks in the code domain and the need for more robust safety alignment algorithms to match the code capabilities of LLMs.
Read more6/11/2024