Software vulnerabilities are essentially errors in code that malicious actors can exploit. Advanced language models such as CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, and CodeT5 can detect these vulnerabilities, provide detailed analysis assessments, and even recommend patches to address them.
These models have proven to be highly effective in identifying and mitigating software vulnerabilities, making them an essential tool for any organization looking to enhance their security posture.
A tool named AIBugHunter in VSCode uses these models for adequate software security.
While ChatGPT and other large language models excel in code-related tasks, no comprehensive studies have assessed their potential for the entire vulnerability workflow, including-
API security isn’t just a priority; it’s the lifeline of businesses and organizations. Yet, this interconnectivity brings with it an array of vulnerabilities that are often concealed beneath the surface.
Recently, the following cybersecurity researchers from Monash University, Clayton, Australia, have explored ChatGPT’s use in software vulnerability tasks, including prediction, classification, and smart contract correction:-
Some previous studies examined large language models in automated program repair but not the latest ChatGPT versions.
Cybersecurity researchers analyzed the ability of ChatGPT for the following four vulnerability prediction tasks:-
ChatGPT’s 1.7 trillion parameters vastly exceed those of source code-oriented models like CodeBERT, making prompt-based usage essential. Fine-tuning for vulnerability tasks isn’t possible due to ChatGPT’s proprietary parameters.
Security analysts evaluate ChatGPT (get-3.5-turbo and gpt-4) against code-specific models.
They compared it with AIBugHunter, CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, and VulExplainer on four vulnerability tasks using Big-Vul and CVEFixes datasets, addressing four research questions.
Here, we have mentioned all four research questions below, along with their respective results:-
(RQ1) How accurate is ChatGPT for function and line-level vulnerability predictions?
(RQ2) How accurate is ChatGPT for vulnerability type classification?
(RQ3) How accurate is ChatGPT for vulnerability severity estimation?
(RQ4) How accurate is ChatGPT for automated vulnerability repair?
ChatGPT didn’t produce correct repair patches, whereas fine-tuned baselines repaired 7%-30%. BLEU and METEOR scores confirm baseline patches are closer to true ones.
This highlights the challenge of vulnerability repair, suggesting ChatGPT requires domain-specific fine-tuning.
Other ChatGPT Developments:
Protect yourself from vulnerabilities using Patch Manager Plus to quickly patch over 850 third-party applications. Take advantage of the free trial to ensure 100% security.
Hackers are actively probing AI systems, turning exposed gateways and agent tools into routes for…
Hackers are making some phishing pages harder to track by changing the code delivered to…
A cyber incident reportedly forced a British power plant to halt operations for about four…
Russian hackers have used a new backdoor called HOOKEDGE to target defense manufacturers, government bodies,…
TITAN ransomware is pairing file encryption with an ambitious claim: artificial intelligence that can sort…
A fake student resume is being used to place a remote-access tool on researchers’ Windows…