REVIEW 2 cited by
LLM4CVE: Enabling Iterative Automated Vulnerability Repair with 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
Software vulnerabilities continue to be ubiquitous, even in the era of AI-powered code assistants, advanced static analysis tools, and the adoption of extensive testing frameworks. It has become apparent that we must not simply prevent these bugs, but also eliminate them in a quick, efficient manner. Yet, human code intervention is slow, costly, and can often lead to further security vulnerabilities, especially in legacy codebases. The advent of highly advanced Large Language Models (LLM) has opened up the possibility for many software defects to be patched automatically. We propose LLM4CVE an LLM-based iterative pipeline that robustly fixes vulnerable functions in real-world code with high accuracy. We examine our pipeline with State-of-the-Art LLMs, such as GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 38B, and Llama 3 70B. We achieve a human-verified quality score of 8.51/10 and an increase in groundtruth code similarity of 20% with Llama 3 70B. To promote further research in the area of LLM-based vulnerability repair, we publish our testing apparatus, fine-tuned weights, and experimental data on our website
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Identifying Helpful Context for LLM-based Vulnerability Repair: A Preliminary Study
Using CVE descriptions and manually selected code context in prompts, and combining the best prompts, GPT-4o fixed 26 of 42 Java vulnerabilities at least once, up from 19 with its baseline prompt.
-
The 4/$\delta$ Bound: Designing Predictable LLM-Verifier Systems for Formal Method Guarantee
The 4/δ bound is the mean of four geometric distributions, not a new theorem, and the simulation validation is circular.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.