REVIEW 2 cited by
Benchmarking Prompt Engineering Techniques for Secure Code Generation with GPT 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
read the original abstract
Prompt engineering reduces reasoning mistakes in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, its effectiveness in mitigating vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code remains underexplored. To address this gap, we implemented a benchmark to automatically assess the impact of various prompt engineering strategies on code security. Our benchmark leverages two peer-reviewed prompt datasets and employs static scanners to evaluate code security at scale. We tested multiple prompt engineering techniques on GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4o, and GPT-4o-mini. Our results show that for GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini, a security-focused prompt prefix can reduce the occurrence of security vulnerabilities by up to 56%. Additionally, all tested models demonstrated the ability to detect and repair between 41.9% and 68.7% of vulnerabilities in previously generated code when using iterative prompting techniques. Finally, we introduce a "prompt agent" that demonstrates how the most effective techniques can be applied in real-world development workflows.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
WildCode Revisited: A Comprehensive Empirical Study on the Security of LLM-Generated Code
Using real ChatGPT conversation logs, code generated by the model is frequently insecure and users rarely request security-related code.
-
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 to comment.