Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

TrojanPuzzle: Covertly Poisoning Code-Suggestion 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

arxiv 2301.02344 v2 pith:LCN6CN4R submitted 2023-01-06 cs.CR cs.LG

classification cs.CRcs.LG
keywords datacodemodelstrojanpuzzleattacksmodelpoisontraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With tools like GitHub Copilot, automatic code suggestion is no longer a dream in software engineering. These tools, based on large language models, are typically trained on massive corpora of code mined from unvetted public sources. As a result, these models are susceptible to data poisoning attacks where an adversary manipulates the model's training by injecting malicious data. Poisoning attacks could be designed to influence the model's suggestions at run time for chosen contexts, such as inducing the model into suggesting insecure code payloads. To achieve this, prior attacks explicitly inject the insecure code payload into the training data, making the poison data detectable by static analysis tools that can remove such malicious data from the training set. In this work, we demonstrate two novel attacks, COVERT and TROJANPUZZLE, that can bypass static analysis by planting malicious poison data in out-of-context regions such as docstrings. Our most novel attack, TROJANPUZZLE, goes one step further in generating less suspicious poison data by never explicitly including certain (suspicious) parts of the payload in the poison data, while still inducing a model that suggests the entire payload when completing code (i.e., outside docstrings). This makes TROJANPUZZLE robust against signature-based dataset-cleansing methods that can filter out suspicious sequences from the training data. Our evaluation against models of two sizes demonstrates that both COVERT and TROJANPUZZLE have significant implications for practitioners when selecting code used to train or tune code-suggestion models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. RTL-Breaker: Assessing the Security of LLMs against Backdoor Attacks on HDL Code Generation

    cs.CR 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RTL-Breaker shows that fine-tuning an LLM on a small fraction of poisoned Verilog samples can make it generate malicious RTL code when a specific trigger appears, while still passing VerilogEval functional checks.

  2. A Red Teaming Framework for Large Language Models: A Case Study on Faithfulness Evaluation

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Introduces a multi-role red teaming framework using attacker and jury models that increases attack success rates by up to 7.9% on LLM faithfulness in question-answering tasks.

  3. Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques

    cs.CR 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that maps LLM applications, vulnerabilities, and defenses across eight cybersecurity domains, but with significant citation and rigor problems.

  4. Navigating the Risks: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Ethics Threats in LLM-Based Agents

    cs.AI 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey proposing a source-and-impact taxonomy (input, model, combined; security, privacy, ethics) for threats to LLM-based agents, with feature analysis and four case studies.

Pith tools