惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
Jina AI
Jina AI
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
博客园 - 【当耐特】
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
IT之家
IT之家
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
爱范儿
爱范儿
小众软件
小众软件
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
The Cloudflare Blog
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
博客园 - Franky
博客园_首页
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
雷峰网
雷峰网
罗磊的独立博客

cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

VLA Foundry: A Unified Framework for Training Vision-Language-Action Models Evaluating LLM-Generated Obfuscated XSS Payloads for Machine Learning-Based Detection Do Agents Dream of Root Shells? Partial-Credit Evaluation of LLM Agents in Capture the Flag Challenges Refute-or-Promote: An Adversarial Stage-Gated Multi-Agent Review Methodology for High-Precision LLM-Assisted Defect Discovery From Particles to Perils: SVGD-Based Hazardous Scenario Generation for Autonomous Driving Systems Testing Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraph Human-Machine Co-Boosted Bug Report Identification with Mutualistic Neural Active Learning LLMSniffer: Detecting LLM-Generated Code via GraphCodeBERT and Supervised Contrastive Learning Neurosymbolic Repo-level Code Localization CodeMMR: Bridging Natural Language, Code, and Image for Unified Retrieval Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific Agents: Stronger Safety and Security Guarantees Without Sacrificing Utility Verification Modulo Tested Library Contracts The Semi-Executable Stack: Agentic Software Engineering and the Expanding Scope of SE Scaling Test-Time Compute for Agentic Coding AI-Assisted Requirements Engineering: An Empirical Evaluation Relative to Expert Judgment From Procedural Skills to Strategy Genes: Towards Experience-Driven Test-Time Evolution Atropos: Improving Cost-Benefit Trade-off of LLM-based Agents under Self-Consistency with Early Termination and Model Hotswap Vibe-Coding: Feedback-Based Automated Verification with no Human Code Inspection, a Feasibility Study Benchmarks for Trajectory Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis in OpenClaw and Codex: ATBench-Claw and ATBench-Codex Bounded Autonomy for Enterprise AI: Typed Action Contracts and Consumer-Side Execution AIPC: Agent-Based Automation for AI Model Deployment with Qualcomm AI Runtime Analyzing Chain of Thought (CoT) Approaches in Control Flow Code Deobfuscation Tasks Asking What Matters: Reward-Driven Clarification for Software Engineering Tasks Prompt-Driven Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review LinuxArena: A Control Setting for AI Agents in Live Production Software Environments LLMs taking shortcuts in test generation: A study with SAP HANA and LevelDB Large Language Models to Enhance Business Process Modeling: Past, Present, and Future Trends CollabCoder: Plan-Code Co-Evolution via Collaborative Decision-Making for Efficient Code Generation Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can zero-shot learning (ZSL) go? Learning from Change: Predictive Models for Incident Prevention in a Regulated IT Environment
Secure Coding with AI -- From Detection to Repair
Vladislav Belozerov, Peter J Barclay, Ashkan Sami · 2025-04-29 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

While several studies have examined the security of code generated by GPT and other Large Language Models (LLMs), most have relied on controlled experiments rather than real developer interactions. This paper investigates the security of GPT-generated code extracted from the DevGPT dataset and evaluates the ability of current LLMs to detect and repair vulnerabilities in this real-world context. We analysed 2,315 C, C++, and C# code snippets using static scanners combined with manual inspection, identifying 56 vulnerabilities across 48 files. These files were then assessed using GPT-4.1, GPT-5, and Claude Opus 4.1 to determine whether these could identify the security issues and, where applicable, to specify the corresponding Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) numbers and propose fixes. Manual review and re-scanning of the modified code showed that GPT-4.1, GPT-5, and Claude Opus 4.1 correctly detected 46, 44, and 45 vulnerabilities, and successfully repaired 42, 44, and 43 respectively. A comparison of experiments conducted in October 2024 and September 2025 indicates substantial progress, with overall detection and remediation rates improving from roughly 50 % to around 75 - 80 %. We also observe that LLM-generated code is about as likely to contain vulnerabilities as developer-written code, and that LLMs may confidently provide incorrect information, posing risks for less experienced developers.