REVIEW 2 cited by
Can You Really Trust Code Copilots? Evaluating Large Language Models from a Code Security Perspective
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
Can You Really Trust Code Copilots? Evaluating Large Language Models from a Code Security Perspective
read the original abstract
Code security and usability are both essential for various coding assistant applications driven by large language models (LLMs). Current code security benchmarks focus solely on single evaluation task and paradigm, such as code completion and generation, lacking comprehensive assessment across dimensions like secure code generation, vulnerability repair and discrimination. In this paper, we first propose CoV-Eval, a multi-task benchmark covering various tasks such as code completion, vulnerability repair, vulnerability detection and classification, for comprehensive evaluation of LLM code security. Besides, we developed VC-Judge, an improved judgment model that aligns closely with human experts and can review LLM-generated programs for vulnerabilities in a more efficient and reliable way. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 20 proprietary and open-source LLMs. Overall, while most LLMs identify vulnerable codes well, they still tend to generate insecure codes and struggle with recognizing specific vulnerability types and performing repairs. Extensive experiments and qualitative analyses reveal key challenges and optimization directions, offering insights for future research in LLM code security.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
A Quasi-Experimental Developer Study of Security Training in LLM-Assisted Web Application Development
A within-subject study of 12 developers found that security training reduced validated weaknesses by 31.5% and critical issues by 79.2% in LLM-assisted backend coding.
-
The Illusion of Secure LLM Code: Closing the Security Gap via Iterative Reprompting
Across five coding assistants, authentication code is insecure under basic or generic-secure prompts; single-shot NIST help improves it, but only iterative reprompting approaches defense-in-depth.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.