How secure is AI-generated Code: A Large-Scale Comparison of Large Language Models
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2024
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866913606702989312 |
|---|---|
| author | Tihanyi, Norbert Bisztray, Tamas Ferrag, Mohamed Amine Jain, Ridhi Cordeiro, Lucas C. |
| author_facet | Tihanyi, Norbert Bisztray, Tamas Ferrag, Mohamed Amine Jain, Ridhi Cordeiro, Lucas C. |
| contents | This study compares state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) on their tendency to generate vulnerabilities when writing C programs using a neutral zero-shot prompt. Tihanyi et al. introduced the FormAI dataset at PROMISE'23, featuring 112,000 C programs generated by GPT-3.5-turbo, with over 51.24% identified as vulnerable. We extended that research with a large-scale study involving 9 state-of-the-art models such as OpenAI's GPT-4o-mini, Google's Gemini Pro 1.0, TII's 180 billion-parameter Falcon, Meta's 13 billion-parameter Code Llama, and several other compact models. Additionally, we introduce the FormAI-v2 dataset, which comprises 331 000 compilable C programs generated by these LLMs. Each program in the dataset is labeled based on the vulnerabilities detected in its source code through formal verification, using the Efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC). This technique minimizes false positives by providing a counterexample for the specific vulnerability and reduces false negatives by thoroughly completing the verification process. Our study reveals that at least 62.07% of the generated programs are vulnerable. The differences between the models are minor, as they all show 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 proper risk assessment and validation. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2404_18353 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | How secure is AI-generated Code: A Large-Scale Comparison of Large Language Models Tihanyi, Norbert Bisztray, Tamas Ferrag, Mohamed Amine Jain, Ridhi Cordeiro, Lucas C. Cryptography and Security Artificial Intelligence Programming Languages This study compares state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) on their tendency to generate vulnerabilities when writing C programs using a neutral zero-shot prompt. Tihanyi et al. introduced the FormAI dataset at PROMISE'23, featuring 112,000 C programs generated by GPT-3.5-turbo, with over 51.24% identified as vulnerable. We extended that research with a large-scale study involving 9 state-of-the-art models such as OpenAI's GPT-4o-mini, Google's Gemini Pro 1.0, TII's 180 billion-parameter Falcon, Meta's 13 billion-parameter Code Llama, and several other compact models. Additionally, we introduce the FormAI-v2 dataset, which comprises 331 000 compilable C programs generated by these LLMs. Each program in the dataset is labeled based on the vulnerabilities detected in its source code through formal verification, using the Efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC). This technique minimizes false positives by providing a counterexample for the specific vulnerability and reduces false negatives by thoroughly completing the verification process. Our study reveals that at least 62.07% of the generated programs are vulnerable. The differences between the models are minor, as they all show 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 proper risk assessment and validation. |
| title | How secure is AI-generated Code: A Large-Scale Comparison of Large Language Models |
| topic | Cryptography and Security Artificial Intelligence Programming Languages |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18353 |