Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Integrating Artificial Open Generative Artificial Intelligence into Software Supply Chain Security

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Open-weight LLMs can catch some code flaws, but the paper argues they should augment, not replace, rule-based security scanners in the software supply chain.

desk verdict TruthfulQA is the wrong instrument for this task, so the paper's scores don't measure vulnerability detection; the rest is a plausible but unsupported argument for LLMs as a supplementary layer. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19088 v1 pith:RFAMM6ID submitted 2024-12-26 cs.CR cs.AIcs.ET

Vasileios Alevizos , George A Papakostas , Akebu Simasiku , Dimitra Malliarou , Antonis Messinis , Sabrina Edralin , Clark Xu , Zongliang Yue This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.ET
keywords largelanguagemodelssoftwaresupplychainsecurityvulnerabilitydetectiondeprecatedcodestaticanddynamicanalysisTruthfulQAbenchmarkopen-weightLLMs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether free, open-weight large language models can take over the job that rule-based static and dynamic security scanners do in the software supply chain. To find out, the authors ran five models—GPT-2, Gemma 7B, Mistral-7B, OpenLLaMA, and Phi2—on sets of source code containing vulnerabilities or deprecated patterns, scoring the models' answers with the TruthfulQA benchmark. The results are mixed: larger models generally detect more, but every model struggles with long inputs and with patterns outside its training data. The paper concludes that LLMs are not a drop-in replacement for deterministic scanners, and should instead be used as an additional review layer, kept fresh with security databases and continual updates.

What carries the argument

The evaluation pipeline is the TruthfulQA benchmark, a question-answering test that checks whether models repeat common falsehoods, here repurposed to score model answers about vulnerable or deprecated code. Each prompt is run ten times, answers are checked against correct answers, and humans review truthfulness on complex questions. Model scores, reported as a TruthfulQA average and an average detection per task, are then interpreted in terms of architectural features—parameter count, training-data mixture, attention mechanisms, and context length—so the comparison across languages does the argument's work.

What would settle it

Run the same five models on a corpus of real vulnerable and clean code with ground-truth labels, using a conventional static analyzer as a baseline and human review as ground truth; if LLM detection accuracy on novel vulnerabilities is at or below chance, or if the models add no correct findings beyond what the analyzer already finds, the paper's claim that LLMs can fortify supply chain security as an additional review layer would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLMs, applied proactively and paired with extensive security databases and regular updates, can fortify software supply chain processes against emerging threats, but only as augmentation—not as a replacement for conventional scanners. The authors' experiments yield per-model and per-language scores: OpenLLaMA leads overall, particularly in C and Objective-C; Gemma is the most consistent generalist, strongest in C++ and Python; GPT-2 is steady in Python and C++ but weaker in JavaScript and Ruby; Mistral-7B sits in the middle with limited language-specific retention; and Phi2 trails on most languages. These differences are attributed to model size, training-data mixture, attention mechanisms, and context length. The paper takes the observed failures—context-length limits, memory complexity, and difficulty with new or unfamiliar data patterns—as evidence that LLMs in their current form cannot fully replace deterministic scanners.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the TruthfulQA benchmark, a general-knowledge truthfulness test, actually measures a model's ability to detect code vulnerabilities and deprecated code; if that mapping is wrong, the reported scores do not support the paper's conclusions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practical pipeline can pair LLMs with existing scanners so that the models act as a second reviewer for code errors and deprecated patterns, while deterministic tools keep their compliance-friendly, reproducible output.
  • Because larger models with broader training data scored higher overall, teams choosing an LLM for supply chain security should expect language-specific performance differences, not a single universal best choice.
  • Context-length limits mean large files must be split or pre-filtered before an LLM sees them, so integration is not a drop-in wrapper around a repository.
  • Since the tested models cannot retrieve up-to-date threat information, any deployed LLM layer would need regular fine-tuning or enrichment from a current security database to stay useful.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper reports no side-by-side baseline against a conventional static analyzer; a direct comparison on the same corpus would quantify how much of the reported detection is genuinely additive rather than redundant.
  • Because TruthfulQA measures general truthfulness rather than code-security competence, the reported scores may partly reflect general language ability; a vulnerability-labeled code benchmark could rank the same models differently.
  • The proposed remedy of continual retraining presumes that model weights can keep pace with novel attack patterns; a more testable extension would let the LLM query a live vulnerability database at inference time and measure whether that closes the gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates five open-weights LLMs (GPT-2, Gemma 7B, Mistral-7B, OpenLLaMA, Phi2) for detecting code vulnerabilities and deprecated patterns in software supply chains. The methodology applies the TruthfulQA benchmark and a dataset described only as containing 500 vulnerabilities per programming language. Table I reports TQA and 'Avg' scores per model; Section IV discusses per-language performance differences, and the conclusion claims LLMs could augment, not replace, traditional scanners.

Significance. If the results were valid, a systematic comparison of open LLMs for vulnerability detection would be a useful input to software supply chain tooling decisions. The paper also surveys relevant prior work on LLMs for vulnerability repair and detection, which is the strongest part of the manuscript. However, the current evaluation does not establish the central claim: the benchmark does not measure the target task, the dataset is unverifiable, no baseline scanners are compared, and the reported table contradicts the discussion. The paper ships no code, data, or machine-checked artifacts, so the empirical contribution is not reproducible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A, Table I] The TruthfulQA benchmark is a general-knowledge truthfulness test that contains no source-code vulnerability or deprecated-code detection tasks. The paper provides no adaptation or mapping from TruthfulQA to code security, so the reported TQA scores cannot support the claim that these models detect security issues in software supply chains. This is an internal-validity failure that undermines the empirical basis of the central claim.
  2. [Section III-B] The dataset is described in one paragraph with no provenance, labeling criteria, ground truth, example instances, or release mechanism. The claim of 500 vulnerabilities or deprecated anti-patterns per programming language cannot be checked, reproduced, or interpreted, and no quality-control process is described. Without this information, the 'Avg' scores in Table I are uninterpretable.
  3. [Section IV and Table I] The discussion states that OpenLLaMA 'indissolubly stands out with the highest overall performance,' but Table I shows GPT-2 with the highest Avg (67.02) and OpenLLaMA at 66.61. The table does not define what 'Avg' aggregates, and no per-language scores are provided despite Section IV making detailed per-language claims (e.g., Mistral weak in Ruby and Perl, GPT-2 weak in JavaScript). The reported evidence does not support the stated comparative findings.
  4. [Introduction and Conclusion] The paper's hypothesis is that LLMs can 'supplant traditional static and dynamic security scanners,' but the experiments include no comparison against any static or dynamic scanner, and the conclusion retreats to LLMs as 'a valuable augmentation' of existing monitoring services. The central research question about replacement is therefore never tested against the baseline it claims to replace.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and passim] The abstract and several passages contain grammatical errors (e.g., 'human errors always looming', 'With autonomous system issues are not just stop') that impede readability.
  2. [Section III-A] The paper mentions repeating each prompt 10 times for reliability but reports no variance, confidence intervals, or statistical tests, making it impossible to assess the stability of the reported scores.
  3. [Section II-A] The subsection 'Taxonomy of Supply Chain Security' is listed but contains no text, leaving the structuring of the background incomplete.
  4. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is cited with a caption but is not described in the text, and the figure itself is not included in the full text provided; readers cannot understand what the workflow actually involved.
  5. [References] Reference [8] is cited in support of using LLMs to fix bugs, but the cited work ('Enterprise Security: The Manager's Defense Guide') does not appear relevant to that claim; please verify and replace the citation.
  6. [Section IV] The prose uses idiosyncratic and imprecise wording ('indissolubly', 'scotches', 'perpetuates') that obscures the intended technical meaning and should be revised for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's claims are empirical and self-contained, though the evaluation has a benchmark-validity mismatch that is not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This paper contains no mathematical derivation chain in which a predicted quantity is equivalent to an input by construction. The central claims are empirical: the authors apply the TruthfulQA benchmark to several open LLMs, report TQA and average detection scores, and discuss language-level differences. I find no fitted parameter that is renamed as a prediction, no self-citation chain that carries the argument, and no invocation of a uniqueness or ansatz result from the authors' prior work. The paper's most serious methodological weakness is that TruthfulQA is a general-knowledge truthfulness benchmark, not a source-code vulnerability or deprecated-code detection benchmark, so the reported scores do not directly measure the claimed capability. That is a construct-validity and internal-validity problem, not a circularity problem: the scores are not derived from the claim, and the claim is not defined in terms of the scores. The paper also states its own limitations in Section V-A, but those limitations concern memory, unfamiliar patterns, and prompt injection, not a reduction of the findings to the inputs. Applying the required standard of quoting a specific reduction, no circular step can be exhibited. Therefore the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The evaluation rests entirely on unvalidated proxies and self-defined datasets; no independent benchmarks, baselines, or external tools are used to calibrate the scores.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption TruthfulQA benchmark scores are a valid proxy for vulnerability and deprecated-code detection performance.
    The paper applies TruthfulQA, originally a general-knowledge truthfulness benchmark, to code security tasks without validation. Section III-A.
  • domain assumption The self-constructed dataset of 500 vulnerable or deprecated snippets per language is representative of real software supply chain weaknesses.
    Dataset construction is described in one paragraph (Section III-B) with no provenance, labeling criteria, or validation against real-world scans.
  • domain assumption Human review of model outputs for truthfulness produces reliable ground-truth labels for code vulnerability classification.
    The paper states answers are 'reviewed by humans for truthfulness' (Section III-A), but provides no rubric, inter-rater agreement, or details.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating Artificial Open Generative Artificial Intelligence into Software Supply Chain Security." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFAMM6ID

@misc{pith2026241219088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating Artificial Open Generative Artificial Intelligence into Software Supply Chain Security},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFAMM6ID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19088}
}
read the original abstract

While new technologies emerge, human errors always looming. Software supply chain is increasingly complex and intertwined, the security of a service has become paramount to ensuring the integrity of products, safeguarding data privacy, and maintaining operational continuity. In this work, we conducted experiments on the promising open Large Language Models (LLMs) into two main software security challenges: source code language errors and deprecated code, with a focus on their potential to replace conventional static and dynamic security scanners that rely on predefined rules and patterns. Our findings suggest that while LLMs present some unexpected results, they also encounter significant limitations, particularly in memory complexity and the management of new and unfamiliar data patterns. Despite these challenges, the proactive application of LLMs, coupled with extensive security databases and continuous updates, holds the potential to fortify Software Supply Chain (SSC) processes against emerging threats.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Software Supply Chain Overview of Threats [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Categorical workflow of our experiments in two different categories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Security Solutions of Supply Chain Management,

    A. Burmeisters and D. Solovjovs, “Security Solutions of Supply Chain Management,” vol. 2, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Antecedents and outcomes of supply chain security practices: the role of organizational security culture and supply chain disruption occurrence,

    D. Asamoah, D. Nuertey, B. Agyei-Owusu, and I. N. Acquah, “Antecedents and outcomes of supply chain security practices: the role of organizational security culture and supply chain disruption occurrence,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1059–1082, Mar. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.emerald.com/insigh...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A Viewpoint on Human Factors in Software Supply Chain Security: A Research Agenda,

    M. Fourn ´e, D. Wermke, S. Fahl, and Y . Acar, “A Viewpoint on Human Factors in Software Supply Chain Security: A Research Agenda,” IEEE Security & Privacy , vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 59–63, Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10315781/

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Using historical software vulnerability data to forecast future vulnerabilities,

    D. Last, “Using historical software vulnerability data to forecast future vulnerabilities,” in 2015 Resilience Week (RWS) . Philadelphia, PA, USA: IEEE, Aug. 2015, pp. 1–7. [Online]. Available: http: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7287429/

    work page arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Waters, Supply chain risk management: vulnerability and resilience in logistics

    D. Waters, Supply chain risk management: vulnerability and resilience in logistics. Kogan Page Publishers, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Impacts of Cyber Security and Supply Chain Risk on Digital Operations: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Indus- try,

    F. Del Giorgio Solfa, “Impacts of Cyber Security and Supply Chain Risk on Digital Operations: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Indus- try,” International Journal of Technology, Innovation and Management (IJTIM), vol. 2, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    What is Software Supply Chain Security?

    M. S. Melara and M. Bowman, “What is Software Supply Chain Security?” Sep. 2022, arXiv:2209.04006 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04006

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Enterprise Security: The Manager’s Defense Guide,

    D. L. Clark, “Enterprise Security: The Manager’s Defense Guide,”

    work page

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Large Language Models for Supply Chain Optimization,

    B. Li, K. Mellou, B. Zhang, J. Pathuri, and I. Menache, “Large Language Models for Supply Chain Optimization,” Jul. 2023, arXiv:2307.03875 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03875

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A review of explainable artificial intelligence in supply chain management using neurosymbolic approaches,

    E. E. Kosasih, E. Papadakis, G. Baryannis, and A. Brintrup, “A review of explainable artificial intelligence in supply chain management using neurosymbolic approaches,” International Journal of Production Research , pp. 1–31, Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfon...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models,

    H. Pearce, B. Tan, B. Ahmad, R. Karri, and B. Dolan-Gavitt, “Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models,” in 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . San Francisco, CA, USA: IEEE, May 2023, pp. 2339–2356. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplo...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Revolutionizing Cyber Threat Detection with Large Language Models,

    M. A. Ferrag, M. Ndhlovu, N. Tihanyi, L. C. Cordeiro, M. Debbah, and T. Lestable, “Revolutionizing Cyber Threat Detection with Large Language Models,” Jun. 2023, arXiv:2306.14263 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.14263

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Fuzzers: Fuzzing Deep-Learning Libraries via Large Language Models,

    Y . Deng, C. S. Xia, H. Peng, C. Yang, and L. Zhang, “Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Fuzzers: Fuzzing Deep-Learning Libraries via Large Language Models,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. Seattle W A USA: ACM,...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Towards an Understanding of Large Language Models in Software Engineering Tasks,

    Z. Zheng, K. Ning, J. Chen, Y . Wang, W. Chen, L. Guo, and W. Wang, “Towards an Understanding of Large Language Models in Software Engineering Tasks,” Aug. 2023, arXiv:2308.11396 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11396

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. Sakaoglu, “KARTAL: Web Application Vulnerability Hunting Using Large Language Models: Novel method for detecting logical vulnera- bilities in web applications with finetuned Large Language Models.”

  8. [16]

    VulD- Transformer: Source Code Vulnerability Detection via Transformer,

    X. Zhang, F. Zhang, B. Zhao, B. Zhou, and B. Xiao, “VulD- Transformer: Source Code Vulnerability Detection via Transformer,” in Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware . Hangzhou China: ACM, Aug. 2023, pp. 185–193. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org...

    2023

  9. [17]

    VulDetect: A novel technique for detecting software vulnerabilities using Language Models,

    M. Omar and S. Shiaeles, “VulDetect: A novel technique for detecting software vulnerabilities using Language Models,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR) . Venice, Italy: IEEE, Jul. 2023, pp. 105–110. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexp...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Analyzing Declarative Deployment Code with Large Language Models:,

    G. Lanciano, M. Stein, V . Hilt, and T. Cucinotta, “Analyzing Declarative Deployment Code with Large Language Models:,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science . Prague, Czech Republic: SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Pub...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sok: Taxonomy of attacks on open-source software supply chains,

    P. Ladisa, H. Plate, M. Martinez, and O. Barais, “Sok: Taxonomy of attacks on open-source software supply chains,” in 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1509–1526

    2023

  12. [20]

    Can Large Language Models Identify And Reason About Security Vulnerabilities? Not Yet,

    S. Ullah, M. Han, S. Pujar, H. Pearce, A. Coskun, and G. Stringhini, “Can Large Language Models Identify And Reason About Security Vulnerabilities? Not Yet,” Dec. 2023, arXiv:2312.12575 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12575

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    DiverseVul: A New Vulnerable Source Code Dataset for Deep Learning Based Vulnerability Detection,

    Y . Chen, Z. Ding, L. Alowain, X. Chen, and D. Wagner, “DiverseVul: A New Vulnerable Source Code Dataset for Deep Learning Based Vulnerability Detection,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses . Hong Kong China: ACM,...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Exploring Transformers for Multi-Label Classification of Java Vulnerabilities,

    C. Mamede, E. Pinconschi, R. Abreu, and J. Campos, “Exploring Transformers for Multi-Label Classification of Java Vulnerabilities,” in 2022 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS) . Guangzhou, China: IEEE, Dec. 2022, pp. 43–52. [O...

    2022

  15. [23]

    How well does LLM generate security tests?

    Y . Zhang, W. Song, Z. Ji, Danfeng, Yao, and N. Meng, “How well does LLM generate security tests?” Oct. 2023, arXiv:2310.00710 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.00710

    2023

  16. [24]

    A survey on Large Language Model (LLM) security and privacy: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,

    Y . Yao, J. Duan, K. Xu, Y . Cai, Z. Sun, and Y . Zhang, “A survey on Large Language Model (LLM) security and privacy: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” High-Confidence Computing , p. 100211, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S266729...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods,

    S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans, “Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    National Vulnerability Database,

    R. Byers, C. Turner, and T. Brewer, “National Vulnerability Database,” Jan. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://data.nist.gov/od/id/ 1E0F15DAAEFB84E4E0531A5706813DD8436

    2022

  19. [27]

    Openllama: An open reproduction of llama,

    X. Geng and H. Liu, “Openllama: An open reproduction of llama,” May 2023. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/openlm-research/ open llama

    2023

  20. [28]

    Redpajama-data: An open source recipe to reproduce llama training dataset,

    T. Computer, “Redpajama-data: An open source recipe to reproduce llama training dataset,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ togethercomputer/RedPajama-Data

    2023

  21. [29]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al. , “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T. M. Gemma Team, C. Hardin, R. Dadashi, S. Bhupatiraju, L. Sifre, M. Rivi `ere, M. S. Kale, J. Love, P. Tafti, L. Hussenot, and e. al, “Gemma,” 2024, publisher: Kaggle. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/m/3301

    2024

  23. [31]

    Team, “Gemma,” 2024

    G. Team, “Gemma,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle. com/m/3301

    2024

  24. [32]

    Mistral 7B,

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. d. l. Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, L. R. Lavaud, M.-A. Lachaux, P. Stock, T. L. Scao, T. Lavril, T. Wang, T. Lacroix, and W. E. Sayed, “Mistral 7B,” Oct. 2023, arXiv:2310.06825 [c...

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever et al., “Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,” OpenAI blog , vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Phi- 3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone,

    M. Abdin, S. A. Jacobs, A. A. Awan, J. Aneja, A. Awadallah, H. Awadalla, N. Bach, A. Bahree, A. Bakhtiari, H. Behl et al. , “Phi- 3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [2002]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 106754877

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 106754877

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.