Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2501.09191

Detecting Vulnerabilities in Encrypted Software Code while Ensuring Code Privacy

Abstract

Software vulnerabilities continue to be the primary cause of cyberattacks. It is crucial to identify vulnerabilities in applications' source code before attackers gain access to them and exploit any vulnerability they may contain. Developers have used static analysis tools (SATs) to find vulnerabilities in unprotected application code, and software testing companies have started offering software code analysis as a service to assist developers in these findings. Such services require access to unprotected code, which raises concerns about its privacy and intellectual property theft. Attackers can also perform this analysis using similar tools, if they gain access to the code. It is, therefore, beneficial to have a system that can maintain code privacy by protecting it with cryptographic techniques, while still allowing authorised people to detect vulnerabilities in the encrypted code. This paper presents such a solution, a novel approach to Software Quality and Privacy that allows source code to be analysed in a protected manner, preserving its privacy. The proposed solution combines Static Analysis with Searchable Symmetric Encryption (SSE) for confidential vulnerability detection, enabling data and dependency tracking for data flow analysis over encrypted source code. The solution represents the code's data and control flows as an Encrypted Inverted Index, in a connected way that enables SSE's queries for vulnerability discovery. The solution was implemented as the CoCoA tool and evaluated with synthetic and real PHP web applications. Results show that CoCoA has similar precision as (non-confidential) SATs - 93% - with real applications, requiring only 209 ms to process 4k LoC - a modest overhead of 42.7% compared to a non-confidential baseline. This paper also defines a new research field - Confidential Code Analysis -, from which other types of code analysis tasks can be derived.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jorge Martins, David Dantas, Rafael Ramires, Bernardo Ferreira, Ibéria Medeiros. 2026-05-23. Detecting Vulnerabilities in Encrypted Software Code while Ensuring Code Privacy. https://doi.org/10.1109/tdsc.2026.3688318

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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