REVIEW 1 cited by
CVE-LLM : Automatic vulnerability evaluation in medical device industry using large language models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The healthcare industry is currently experiencing an unprecedented wave of cybersecurity attacks, impacting millions of individuals. With the discovery of thousands of vulnerabilities each month, there is a pressing need to drive the automation of vulnerability assessment processes for medical devices, facilitating rapid mitigation efforts. Generative AI systems have revolutionized various industries, offering unparalleled opportunities for automation and increased efficiency. This paper presents a solution leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to learn from historical evaluations of vulnerabilities for the automatic assessment of vulnerabilities in the medical devices industry. This approach is applied within the portfolio of a single manufacturer, taking into account device characteristics, including existing security posture and controls. The primary contributions of this paper are threefold. Firstly, it provides a detailed examination of the best practices for training a vulnerability Language Model (LM) in an industrial context. Secondly, it presents a comprehensive comparison and insightful analysis of the effectiveness of Language Models in vulnerability assessment. Finally, it proposes a new human-in-the-loop framework to expedite vulnerability evaluation processes.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insights
A survey of LLM-based vulnerability detection covering 58 papers, with a taxonomy, dataset overview, and gap analysis, but limited by non-transparent selection and unsupported quantitative claims.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.