REVIEW 5 cited by
SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Code
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
SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Code
read the original abstract
With the growing popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineers' daily practices, it is important to ensure that the code generated by these tools is not only functionally correct but also free of vulnerabilities. Although LLMs can help developers to be more productive, prior empirical studies have shown that LLMs can generate insecure code. There are two contributing factors to the insecure code generation. First, existing datasets used to evaluate LLMs do not adequately represent genuine software engineering tasks sensitive to security. Instead, they are often based on competitive programming challenges or classroom-type coding tasks. In real-world applications, the code produced is integrated into larger codebases, introducing potential security risks. Second, existing evaluation metrics primarily focus on the functional correctness of the generated code while ignoring security considerations. Therefore, in this paper, we described SALLM, a framework to benchmark LLMs' abilities to generate secure code systematically. This framework has three major components: a novel dataset of security-centric Python prompts, configurable assessment techniques to evaluate the generated code, and novel metrics to evaluate the models' performance from the perspective of secure code generation.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Do Agents Dream of Root Shells? Partial-Credit Evaluation of LLM Agents in Capture the Flag Challenges
LLM agents reach only 35% average checkpoint completion on ten realistic CTF challenges in a new open benchmark with automated partial-credit scoring.
-
Large Language Models for Code Generation from Multilingual Prompts: A Curated Benchmark and a Study on Code Quality
Prompt language affects LLM code generation, but English is not consistently best: Chinese prompts improve Python correctness on CoderEval, while quality and lexicon effects vary by model and programming language.
-
An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Generated Code Security Across Prompting Methods
Empirical study across five LLMs and four languages finds security-aware prompting changes CWE category distributions but yields no statistically significant reduction in vulnerability frequency or density.
-
Quantize with Confidence? An Empirical Study of Quantization for Code Generation
4-bit quantization of code LLMs mostly preserves pass@1, but AQLM matches or beats full precision while QuIP# degrades most on complex prompts; sensitivity is model-dependent.
-
Precision or Peril: A PoC of Python Code Quality from Quantized Large Language Models
Smaller LLMs produce functional but limited Python code with variable quantization effects and quality/maintainability concerns that require validation before use.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.