Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Chain-of-Thought Prompting of Large Language Models for Discovering and Fixing Software Vulnerabilities

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 2402.17230 v1 pith:QQ7MHBRC submitted 2024-02-27 cs.CR

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

Security vulnerabilities are increasingly prevalent in modern software and they are widely consequential to our society. Various approaches to defending against these vulnerabilities have been proposed, among which those leveraging deep learning (DL) avoid major barriers with other techniques hence attracting more attention in recent years. However, DL-based approaches face critical challenges including the lack of sizable and quality-labeled task-specific datasets and their inability to generalize well to unseen, real-world scenarios. Lately, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive potential in various domains by overcoming those challenges, especially through chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. In this paper, we explore how to leverage LLMs and CoT to address three key software vulnerability analysis tasks: identifying a given type of vulnerabilities, discovering vulnerabilities of any type, and patching detected vulnerabilities. We instantiate the general CoT methodology in the context of these tasks through VSP , our unified, vulnerability-semantics-guided prompting approach, and conduct extensive experiments assessing VSP versus five baselines for the three tasks against three LLMs and two datasets. Results show substantial superiority of our CoT-inspired prompting (553.3%, 36.5%, and 30.8% higher F1 accuracy for vulnerability identification, discovery, and patching, respectively, on CVE datasets) over the baselines. Through in-depth case studies analyzing VSP failures, we also reveal current gaps in LLM/CoT for challenging vulnerability cases, while proposing and validating respective improvements.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 9 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Evaluating Large Language Models for Symbolic Security Protocol Analysis

    cs.CR 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    On 130 obfuscated security protocols, GPT and DeepSeek verdicts are no substitute for ProVerif/OFMC: chat models over-alarm, reasoning models miss about half of true attacks, and confidence scores cannot distinguish c...

  2. DREA: Decoupled Reasoning and Exploration Agents for Repository-Level Vulnerability Detection

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DREA improves repository-level vulnerability detection by coupling an LLM planner that forms hypotheses with a cheap local explorer that gathers cross-file evidence, lifting paired accuracy from 19-26% to 30-42% at mu...

  3. VulWeaver: Weaving Broken Semantics for Grounded Vulnerability Detection

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    VulWeaver improves Java vulnerability detection to 0.75 F1 by enhancing dependency graphs with LLM semantic fixes, extracting full context from slices plus implicit usage info, and applying type-specific meta-promptin...

  4. Guiding AI to Fix Its Own Flaws: An Empirical Study on LLM-Driven Secure Code Generation

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across two Python security benchmarks, all eight LLMs produced vulnerable code at rates from 9.8% to 42.1%, and self-generated hints plus explained feedback reduced vulnerabilities mainly for the strongest models.

Pith tools