Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

ChatGPT for Vulnerability Detection, Classification, and Repair: How Far Are We?

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 2310.09810 v1 pith:BJZ6UW5G submitted 2023-10-15 cs.SE cs.CR

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

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT (i.e., gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4) exhibited remarkable advancement in a range of software engineering tasks associated with source code such as code review and code generation. In this paper, we undertake a comprehensive study by instructing ChatGPT for four prevalent vulnerability tasks: function and line-level vulnerability prediction, vulnerability classification, severity estimation, and vulnerability repair. We compare ChatGPT with state-of-the-art language models designed for software vulnerability purposes. Through an empirical assessment employing extensive real-world datasets featuring over 190,000 C/C++ functions, we found that ChatGPT achieves limited performance, trailing behind other language models in vulnerability contexts by a significant margin. The experimental outcomes highlight the challenging nature of vulnerability prediction tasks, requiring domain-specific expertise. Despite ChatGPT's substantial model scale, exceeding that of source code-pre-trained language models (e.g., CodeBERT) by a factor of 14,000, the process of fine-tuning remains imperative for ChatGPT to generalize for vulnerability prediction tasks. We publish the studied dataset, experimental prompts for ChatGPT, and experimental results at https://github.com/awsm-research/ChatGPT4Vul.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evaluating LLM-Based Regression Test Generation

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A feedback-driven LLM tool generates regression tests for commits in minutes and, when its outputs seed a fuzzer, finds more bugs than a 24-hour state-of-the-art fuzzer on the same benchmark.

  2. Can LLM Prompting Serve as a Proxy for Static Analysis in Vulnerability Detection

    cs.CR 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CWE-specific natural language instructions with contrastive chain-of-thought prompts let LLMs beat default static analyzers on partial-code vulnerability detection for four CWEs.

Pith tools