Vulnerability Detection: From Formal Verification to Large Language Models and Hybrid Approaches: A Comprehensive Overview

Software testing and verification are critical for ensuring the reliability and security of modern software systems. Traditionally, formal verification techniques, such as model checking and theorem proving, have provided rigorous frameworks for detecting bugs and vulnerabilities. However, these methods often face scalability challenges when applied to complex, real-world programs. Recently, the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced a new paradigm for software analysis, leveraging their ability to understand insecure coding practices. Although LLMs demonstrate promising capabilities in tasks such as bug prediction and invariant generation, they lack the formal guarantees of classical methods. This paper presents a comprehensive study of state-of-the-art software testing and verification, focusing on three key approaches: classical formal methods, LLM-based analysis, and emerging hybrid techniques, which combine their strengths. We explore each approach's strengths, limitations, and practical applications, highlighting the potential of hybrid systems to address the weaknesses of standalone methods. We analyze whether integrating formal rigor with LLM-driven insights can enhance the effectiveness and scalability of software verification, exploring their viability as a pathway toward more robust and adaptive testing frameworks.

Dynamic Intelligence Assessment: Benchmarking LLMs on the Road to AGI with a Focus on Model Confidence

As machine intelligence evolves, the need to test and compare the problem-solving abilities of different AI models grows. However, current benchmarks are often overly simplistic, allowing models to perform uniformly well, making it difficult to distinguish their capabilities. Additionally, benchmarks typically rely on static question-answer pairs, which models might memorize or guess. To address these limitations, we introduce the Dynamic Intelligence Assessment (DIA), a novel methodology for testing AI models using dynamic question templates and improved metrics across multiple disciplines such as mathematics, cryptography, cybersecurity, and computer science. The accompanying DIA-Bench dataset, which includes 150 diverse and challenging task templates with mutable parameters, is presented in various formats such as text, PDFs, compiled binaries, and visual puzzles. Our framework introduces four new metrics to assess a model's reliability and confidence across multiple attempts. These metrics revealed that even simple questions are frequently answered incorrectly when posed in varying forms, highlighting significant gaps in models' reliability. Notably, models like GPT-4o tended to overestimate their mathematical abilities, while ChatGPT-4o demonstrated better decision-making and performance through effective tool usage. We evaluated eight state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) using DIA-Bench, showing that current models struggle with complex tasks and often display unexpectedly low confidence, even with simpler questions. The DIA framework sets a new standard for assessing not only problem-solving but also a model's adaptive intelligence and ability to assess its own limitations. The dataset is publicly available on our project's website.

Do Neutral Prompts Produce Insecure Code? FormAI-v2 Dataset: Labelling Vulnerabilities in Code Generated by Large Language Models

This study provides a comparative analysis of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), analyzing how likely they generate vulnerabilities when writing simple C programs using a neutral zero-shot prompt. We address a significant gap in the literature concerning the security properties of code produced by these models without specific directives. N. Tihanyi et al. introduced the FormAI dataset at PROMISE '23, containing 112,000 GPT-3.5-generated C programs, with over 51.24% identified as vulnerable. We expand that work by introducing the FormAI-v2 dataset comprising 265,000 compilable C programs generated using various LLMs, including robust models such as Google's GEMINI-pro, OpenAI's GPT-4, and TII's 180 billion-parameter Falcon, to Meta's specialized 13 billion-parameter CodeLLama2 and various other compact models. Each program in the dataset is labelled based on the vulnerabilities detected in its source code through formal verification using the Efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC). This technique eliminates false positives by delivering a counterexample and ensures the exclusion of false negatives by completing the verification process. Our study reveals that at least 63.47% of the generated programs are vulnerable. The differences between the models are minor, as they all display similar coding errors with slight variations. Our research highlights that while LLMs offer promising capabilities for code generation, deploying their output in a production environment requires risk assessment and validation.

CyberMetric: A Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models Knowledge in Cybersecurity

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel across various domains, from computer vision to medical diagnostics. However, understanding the diverse landscape of cybersecurity, encompassing cryptography, reverse engineering, and managerial facets like risk assessment, presents a challenge, even for human experts. In this paper, we introduce CyberMetric, a benchmark dataset comprising 10,000 questions sourced from standards, certifications, research papers, books, and other publications in the cybersecurity domain. The questions are created through a collaborative process, i.e., merging expert knowledge with LLMs, including GPT-3.5 and Falcon-180B. Human experts spent over 200 hours verifying their accuracy and relevance. Beyond assessing LLMs' knowledge, the dataset's main goal is to facilitate a fair comparison between humans and different LLMs in cybersecurity. To achieve this, we carefully selected 80 questions covering a wide range of topics within cybersecurity and involved 30 participants of diverse expertise levels, facilitating a comprehensive comparison between human and machine intelligence in this area. The findings revealed that LLMs outperformed humans in almost every aspect of cybersecurity.

The FormAI Dataset: Generative AI in Software Security Through the Lens of Formal Verification

This paper presents the FormAI dataset, a large collection of 112,000 AI-generated compilable and independent C programs with vulnerability classification. We introduce a dynamic zero-shot prompting technique, constructed to spawn a diverse set of programs utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs). The dataset is generated by GPT-3.5-turbo and comprises programs with varying levels of complexity. Some programs handle complicated tasks such as network management, table games, or encryption, while others deal with simpler tasks like string manipulation. Every program is labeled with the vulnerabilities found within the source code, indicating the type, line number, and vulnerable function name. This is accomplished by employing a formal verification method using the Efficient SMT-based Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC), which performs model checking, abstract interpretation, constraint programming, and satisfiability modulo theories, to reason over safety/security properties in programs. This approach definitively detects vulnerabilities and offers a formal model known as a counterexample, thus eliminating the possibility of generating false positive reports. This property of the dataset makes it suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of various static and dynamic analysis tools. Furthermore, we have associated the identified vulnerabilities with relevant Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) numbers. We make the source code available for the 112,000 programs, accompanied by a comprehensive list detailing the vulnerabilities detected in each individual program including location and function name, which makes the dataset ideal to train LLMs and machine learning algorithms.

A New Era in Software Security: Towards Self-Healing Software via Large Language Models and Formal Verification

In this paper we present a novel solution that combines the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) with Formal Verification strategies to verify and automatically repair software vulnerabilities. Initially, we employ Bounded Model Checking (BMC) to locate the software vulnerability and derive a counterexample. The counterexample provides evidence that the system behaves incorrectly or contains a vulnerability. The counterexample that has been detected, along with the source code, are provided to the LLM engine. Our approach involves establishing a specialized prompt language for conducting code debugging and generation to understand the vulnerability's root cause and repair the code. Finally, we use BMC to verify the corrected version of the code generated by the LLM. As a proof of concept, we create ESBMC-AI based on the Efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC) and a pre-trained Transformer model, specifically gpt-3.5-turbo, to detect and fix errors in C programs. Our experimentation involved generating a dataset comprising 1000 C code samples, each consisting of 20 to 50 lines of code. Notably, our proposed method achieved an impressive success rate of up to 80% in repairing vulnerable code encompassing buffer overflow and pointer dereference failures. We assert that this automated approach can effectively incorporate into the software development lifecycle's continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) process.