Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

On the Effectiveness of Function-Level Vulnerability Detectors for Inter-Procedural 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 2401.09767 v2 pith:FSNNM7OY submitted 2024-01-18 cs.CR cs.SE

classification cs.CRcs.SE
keywords vulnerabilitiesinter-proceduraldetectingstatementsvulnerabilitydetectorsfunction-levelfunctions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Software vulnerabilities are a major cyber threat and it is important to detect them. One important approach to detecting vulnerabilities is to use deep learning while treating a program function as a whole, known as function-level vulnerability detectors. However, the limitation of this approach is not understood. In this paper, we investigate its limitation in detecting one class of vulnerabilities known as inter-procedural vulnerabilities, where the to-be-patched statements and the vulnerability-triggering statements belong to different functions. For this purpose, we create the first Inter-Procedural Vulnerability Dataset (InterPVD) based on C/C++ open-source software, and we propose a tool dubbed VulTrigger for identifying vulnerability-triggering statements across functions. Experimental results show that VulTrigger can effectively identify vulnerability-triggering statements and inter-procedural vulnerabilities. Our findings include: (i) inter-procedural vulnerabilities are prevalent with an average of 2.8 inter-procedural layers; and (ii) function-level vulnerability detectors are much less effective in detecting to-be-patched functions of inter-procedural vulnerabilities than detecting their counterparts of intra-procedural vulnerabilities.

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. Towards Principled Analysis and Mitigation of Space Cyber Risks

    cs.CR 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dissertation presenting a framework for characterizing space cyber attacks, an analysis of the NRS/SPARTA risk scoring approach, a set of desired tool properties, and a new graph-based mission risk analysis and hard...

  2. Mono: Is Your "Clean" Vulnerability Dataset Really Solvable? Exposing and Trapping Undecidable Patches and Beyond

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mono reports that 31% of MegaVul patches are non-security and about 16.7% of CVEs are 'undecidable', while its added context raises LLM vulnerability detection F1 by up to 15%.

Pith tools