Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2408.00435

A Qualitative Study on Using ChatGPT for Software Security: Perception vs. Practicality

M. Mehdi Kholoosi·M. Ali Babar·Roland Croft
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) advancements have enabled the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) that can perform a variety of tasks with remarkable semantic understanding and accuracy. ChatGPT is one such LLM that has gained significant attention due to its impressive capabilities for assisting in various knowledge-intensive tasks. Due to the knowledge-intensive nature of engineering secure software, ChatGPT's assistance is expected to be explored for security-related tasks during the development/evolution of software. To gain an understanding of the potential of ChatGPT as an emerging technology for supporting software security, we adopted a two-fold approach. Initially, we performed an empirical study to analyse the perceptions of those who had explored the use of ChatGPT for security tasks and shared their views on Twitter. It was determined that security practitioners view ChatGPT as beneficial for various software security tasks, including vulnerability detection, information retrieval, and penetration testing. Secondly, we designed an experiment aimed at investigating the practicality of this technology when deployed as an oracle in real-world settings. In particular, we focused on vulnerability detection and qualitatively examined ChatGPT outputs for given prompts within this prominent software security task. Based on our analysis, responses from ChatGPT in this task are largely filled with generic security information and may not be appropriate for industry use. To prevent data leakage, we performed this analysis on a vulnerability dataset compiled after the OpenAI data cut-off date from real-world projects covering 40 distinct vulnerability types and 12 programming languages. We assert that the findings from this study would contribute to future research aimed at developing and evaluating LLMs dedicated to software security.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AIcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M. Mehdi Kholoosi, M. Ali Babar, Roland Croft. 2024-08-01. A Qualitative Study on Using ChatGPT for Software Security: Perception vs. Practicality. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00435

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗