Security Code Review by Large Language Models
2401.16310
0
0
š¬
Abstract
Security code review, as a time-consuming and labour-intensive process, typically requires integration with automated security defect detection tools to ensure code security. Despite the emergence of numerous security analysis tools, those tools face challenges in terms of their poor generalization, high false positive rates, and coarse detection granularity. A recent development with Large Language Models (LLMs) has made them a promising candidate to support security code review. To this end, we conducted the first empirical study to understand the capabilities of LLMs in security code review, delving into the performance, quality problems, and influential factors of LLMs to detect security defects in code reviews. Specifically, we compared the performance of 6 LLMs under five different prompts with the state-of-the-art static analysis tools to detect and analyze security defects. For the best-performing LLM, we conducted a linguistic analysis to explore quality problems in its responses, as well as a regression analysis to investigate the factors influencing its performance. The results are that: (1) existing pre-trained LLMs have limited capability in detecting security defects during code review but significantly outperform the state-of-the-art static analysis tools. (2) GPT-4 performs best among all LLMs when provided with a CWE list for reference. (3) GPT-4 makes few factual errors but frequently generates unnecessary content or responses that are not compliant with the task requirements given in the prompts. (4) GPT-4 is more adept at identifying security defects in code files with fewer tokens, containing functional logic and written by developers with less involvement in the project.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in supporting security code review, a time-consuming and labor-intensive process.
- The researchers compare the performance of 6 LLMs under different prompts to the state-of-the-art static analysis tools in detecting security defects.
- The study also investigates the quality problems and influential factors affecting the performance of the best-performing LLM, GPT-4, in security code review.
Plain English Explanation
Security code review is an important but challenging process that involves carefully examining software code to identify and fix potential security vulnerabilities. This process can be very time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring significant manual effort from security experts.
To address this challenge, the researchers in this study explored the use of large language models (LLMs) - advanced AI systems trained on massive amounts of text data - to assist with security code review. The idea is that these LLMs might be able to automatically detect security flaws in code, potentially saving time and effort for human reviewers.
The researchers compared the performance of 6 different LLMs, including the well-known ChatGPT and [GPT-4], in identifying security vulnerabilities in code samples. They found that while the LLMs did not match the performance of state-of-the-art static analysis tools, they still significantly outperformed these tools in many cases.
Interestingly, the researchers discovered that the best-performing LLM, GPT-4, had some limitations. It frequently generated unnecessary content or responses that did not fully address the task requirements, and it tended to perform better on code files that were shorter and written by developers with less involvement in the project. The researchers also conducted a linguistic analysis to explore the quality problems in GPT-4's responses.
Overall, this study suggests that LLMs have potential to assist with security code review, but there is still work to be done to improve their performance and address the quality issues identified by the researchers. The findings could inform the development of new AI models and techniques for enhancing software security.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted an empirical study to understand the capabilities of LLMs in security code review, focusing on their performance, quality problems, and influential factors. They compared the detection of security defects by 6 LLMs (including GPT-3, GPT-4, and CodeBERT) under 5 different prompts to the state-of-the-art static analysis tools.
For the best-performing LLM, GPT-4, the researchers conducted a linguistic analysis to explore the quality problems in its responses, such as the generation of unnecessary content or responses that did not fully address the task requirements. They also performed a regression analysis to investigate the factors influencing GPT-4's performance, finding that it was more adept at identifying security defects in code files with fewer tokens, containing functional logic, and written by developers with less involvement in the project.
The key findings of the study are:
- Existing pre-trained LLMs have limited capability in detecting security defects during code review, but significantly outperform the state-of-the-art static analysis tools.
- GPT-4 performs best among all LLMs when provided with a CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) list for reference.
- GPT-4 makes few factual errors but frequently generates unnecessary content or responses that are not compliant with the task requirements.
- GPT-4 is more adept at identifying security defects in code files with fewer tokens, containing functional logic, and written by developers with less involvement in the project.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research in their study. For example, they note that the performance of LLMs may be influenced by the quality and diversity of the training data, as well as the specific prompts and instructions provided to the models. There is also a need to explore the scalability of LLM-based security code review and its integration with existing security analysis tools.
Additionally, the study focuses on a limited set of LLMs and security defects, and it would be valuable to expand the scope to include a wider range of models and vulnerability types. The researchers also highlight the importance of addressing the quality problems identified in GPT-4's responses, such as the generation of unnecessary content and non-compliant responses, to improve the reliability and usefulness of LLMs in security code review.
Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the potential and limitations of LLMs for security code review, and it could inform the development of more robust and specialized AI models for enhancing software security. However, further research and refinement are needed to fully realize the benefits of LLMs in this critical domain.
Conclusion
This study represents an important step in exploring the use of large language models to support security code review, a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The researchers found that while existing LLMs have limited capabilities in detecting security defects, they can still significantly outperform state-of-the-art static analysis tools. The best-performing model, GPT-4, showed promise but also faced quality issues, such as generating unnecessary content and non-compliant responses.
The findings of this study could inform the development of more specialized AI models and techniques for enhancing software security, potentially saving time and resources for security experts. However, further research is needed to address the limitations identified in this study, such as the scalability of LLM-based security code review and the quality problems in LLM responses. By continuing to explore the potential of LLMs in this domain, researchers and practitioners may be able to unlock new ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of security code review.
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
š¬
Harnessing Large Language Models for Software Vulnerability Detection: A Comprehensive Benchmarking Study
Karl Tamberg, Hayretdin Bahsi
0
0
Despite various approaches being employed to detect vulnerabilities, the number of reported vulnerabilities shows an upward trend over the years. This suggests the problems are not caught before the code is released, which could be caused by many factors, like lack of awareness, limited efficacy of the existing vulnerability detection tools or the tools not being user-friendly. To help combat some issues with traditional vulnerability detection tools, we propose using large language models (LLMs) to assist in finding vulnerabilities in source code. LLMs have shown a remarkable ability to understand and generate code, underlining their potential in code-related tasks. The aim is to test multiple state-of-the-art LLMs and identify the best prompting strategies, allowing extraction of the best value from the LLMs. We provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the LLM-based approach and compare the results to those of traditional static analysis tools. We find that LLMs can pinpoint many more issues than traditional static analysis tools, outperforming traditional tools in terms of recall and F1 scores. The results should benefit software developers and security analysts responsible for ensuring that the code is free of vulnerabilities.
5/27/2024
š¬
A Case Study of Large Language Models (ChatGPT and CodeBERT) for Security-Oriented Code Analysis
Zhilong Wang, Lan Zhang, Chen Cao, Nanqing Luo, Peng Liu
0
0
LLMs can be used on code analysis tasks like code review, vulnerabilities analysis and etc. However, the strengths and limitations of adopting these LLMs to the code analysis are still unclear. In this paper, we delve into LLMs' capabilities in security-oriented program analysis, considering perspectives from both attackers and security analysts. We focus on two representative LLMs, ChatGPT and CodeBert, and evaluate their performance in solving typical analytic tasks with varying levels of difficulty. Our study demonstrates the LLM's efficiency in learning high-level semantics from code, positioning ChatGPT as a potential asset in security-oriented contexts. However, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations, such as the heavy reliance on well-defined variable and function names, making them unable to learn from anonymized code. For example, the performance of these LLMs heavily relies on the well-defined variable and function names, therefore, will not be able to learn anonymized code. We believe that the concerns raised in this case study deserve in-depth investigation in the future.
5/3/2024
Large Language Models for Cyber Security: A Systematic Literature Review
HanXiang Xu, ShenAo Wang, NingKe Li, KaiLong Wang, YanJie Zhao, Kai Chen, Ting Yu, Yang Liu, HaoYu Wang
0
0
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has opened up new opportunities for leveraging artificial intelligence in various domains, including cybersecurity. As the volume and sophistication of cyber threats continue to grow, there is an increasing need for intelligent systems that can automatically detect vulnerabilities, analyze malware, and respond to attacks. In this survey, we conduct a comprehensive review of the literature on the application of LLMs in cybersecurity (LLM4Security). By comprehensively collecting over 30K relevant papers and systematically analyzing 127 papers from top security and software engineering venues, we aim to provide a holistic view of how LLMs are being used to solve diverse problems across the cybersecurity domain. Through our analysis, we identify several key findings. First, we observe that LLMs are being applied to a wide range of cybersecurity tasks, including vulnerability detection, malware analysis, network intrusion detection, and phishing detection. Second, we find that the datasets used for training and evaluating LLMs in these tasks are often limited in size and diversity, highlighting the need for more comprehensive and representative datasets. Third, we identify several promising techniques for adapting LLMs to specific cybersecurity domains, such as fine-tuning, transfer learning, and domain-specific pre-training. Finally, we discuss the main challenges and opportunities for future research in LLM4Security, including the need for more interpretable and explainable models, the importance of addressing data privacy and security concerns, and the potential for leveraging LLMs for proactive defense and threat hunting. Overall, our survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current state-of-the-art in LLM4Security and identifies several promising directions for future research.
5/10/2024
š¤·
Generate and Pray: Using SALLMS to Evaluate the Security of LLM Generated Code
Mohammed Latif Siddiq, Joanna C. S. Santos, Sajith Devareddy, Anna Muller
0
0
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.
6/4/2024