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

Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
博客园_首页
G
Google Developers Blog
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏
罗磊的独立博客
博客园 - 【当耐特】
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
D
Docker
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
博客园 - 司徒正美
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
博客园 - 叶小钗
月光博客
月光博客
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
Jina AI
Jina AI
Blog — PlanetScale
Blog — PlanetScale
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
博客园 - Franky
L
LangChain Blog
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
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
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI

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
Do LLMs Consider Security? An Empirical Study on Response...
Amirali Sajadi, Binh Le, Anh Nguyen, Kostadin Damevski, Preetha · 2025-02-20 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

The widespread adoption of conversational LLMs for software development has raised new security concerns regarding the safety of LLM-generated content. Our motivational study outlines ChatGPT's potential in volunteering context-specific information to the developers, promoting safe coding practices. Motivated by this finding, we conduct a study to evaluate the degree of security awareness exhibited by three prominent LLMs: Claude 3, GPT-4, and Llama 3. We prompt these LLMs with Stack Overflow questions that contain vulnerable code to evaluate whether they merely provide answers to the questions or if they also warn users about the insecure code, thereby demonstrating a degree of security awareness. Further, we assess whether LLM responses provide information about the causes, exploits, and the potential fixes of the vulnerability, to help raise users' awareness. Our findings show that all three models struggle to accurately detect and warn users about vulnerabilities, achieving a detection rate of only 12.6% to 40% across our datasets. We also observe that the LLMs tend to identify certain types of vulnerabilities related to sensitive information exposure and improper input neutralization much more frequently than other types, such as those involving external control of file names or paths. Furthermore, when LLMs do issue security warnings, they often provide more information on the causes, exploits, and fixes of vulnerabilities compared to Stack Overflow responses. Finally, we provide an in-depth discussion on the implications of our findings and present a CLI-based prompting tool that can be used to generate significantly more secure LLM responses.