Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2510.18448

Real-World Usability of Vulnerability Proof-of-Concepts: A Comprehensive Study

Abstract

The Proof-of-Concept (PoC) for a vulnerability is crucial in validating its existence, mitigating false positives, and illustrating the severity of the security threat it poses. However, research on PoCs significantly lags behind studies focusing on vulnerability data. This discrepancy can be directly attributed to several challenges, including the dispersion of real-world PoCs across multiple platforms, the diversity in writing styles, and the difficulty associated with PoC reproduction. To fill this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study on PoCs in the wild, assessing their report availability, completeness, reproducibility. Specifically, 1) to investigate PoC reports availability for CVE vulnerability, we collected an extensive dataset of 470,921 PoCs and their reports from 13 platforms, representing the broadest collection of publicly available PoCs to date. 2) To assess the completeness of PoC report at a fine-grained level, we proposed a component extraction method, which combines pattern-matching techniques with a fine-tuned BERT-NER model to extract 9 key components from PoC reports. 3) To evaluate the effectiveness of PoCs, we recruited 8 participants to manually reproduce 150 sampled vulnerabilities with 32 vulnerability types based on PoC reports, enabling an in-depth analysis of PoC reproducibility and the factors influencing it. Our findings reveal that 78.9% of CVE vulnerabilities lack available PoCs, and existing PoC reports typically miss about 30% of the essential components required for effective vulnerability understanding and reproduction, with various reasons identified for the failure to reproduce vulnerabilities using available PoC reports. Finally, we proposed actionable strategies for stakeholders to enhance the overall usability of vulnerability PoCs in strengthening software security.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wenjing Dang, Kaixuan Li, Sen Chen, Zhenwei Zhuo, Lyuye Zhang, Zheli Liu. 2025-10-21. Real-World Usability of Vulnerability Proof-of-Concepts: A Comprehensive Study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18448

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