REVIEW 1 cited by
Towards Effective Complementary Security Analysis using Large Language 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
Towards Effective Complementary Security Analysis using Large Language Models
read the original abstract
A key challenge in security analysis is the manual evaluation of potential security weaknesses generated by static application security testing (SAST) tools. Numerous false positives (FPs) in these reports reduce the effectiveness of security analysis. We propose using Large Language Models (LLMs) to improve the assessment of SAST findings. We investigate the ability of LLMs to reduce FPs while trying to maintain a perfect true positive rate, using datasets extracted from the OWASP Benchmark (v1.2) and a real-world software project. Our results indicate that advanced prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency, substantially improve FP detection. Notably, some LLMs identified approximately 62.5% of FPs in the OWASP Benchmark dataset without missing genuine weaknesses. Combining detections from different LLMs would increase this FP detection to approximately 78.9%. Additionally, we demonstrate our approach's generalizability using a real-world dataset covering five SAST tools, three programming languages, and infrastructure files. The best LLM detected 33.85% of all FPs without missing genuine weaknesses, while combining detections from different LLMs would increase this detection to 38.46%. Our findings highlight the potential of LLMs to complement traditional SAST tools, enhancing automation and reducing resources spent addressing false alarms.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Using LLMs to Adjudicate Static-Analysis Alerts with Error Reduction Techniques
Mid-tier reasoning LLMs with consistency checks and LLM reasoning evaluation adjudicate static-analysis alerts at ≥98% recall and ≥94.8% specificity across Juliet, FormAI, and SV-COMP.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.