"You still have to study" -- On the Security of LLM generated code

Stefan Goetz, Andreas Schaad
8/13/2024
cs.SEcs.CRcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

Abstract

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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{goetz2024you,
  title  = {"You still have to study" -- On the Security of LLM generated code},
  author = {Stefan Goetz and Andreas Schaad},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2408.07106},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.07106v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2408.07106.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2408.07106)

Discussion