Helpful or Harmful? Evaluating LLM-Assisted Vulnerability Patching via a Human Study

Software vulnerability remediation is a cognitively demanding task that requires specialized security expertise often lacking in general developers. In the meantime, Large Language Models (LLMs) assisted tools show potential in vulnerability detection, location, and repair tasks. [Hypothesis:] While LLM-assistance is hypothesized to accelerate patching, it also risks introducing hallucinations or insecure code, leading to a higher likelihood of generating superficial repairs that bypass the standard functionality checks but fail the security validation. [Objective:] We aim to present an empirical experiment, unveiling the capability of LLM-assisted vulnerability patching compared to manual debugging on human participants in real-world scenarios. [Method:] We plan to conduct a controlled experiment using a Balanced Crossover design. For that, we have developed a WebApp for code execution and integrated hidden Ghost Tests to verify patch integrity beyond visible functional requirements. The experiment involves training and evaluation scenarios. The remediation speed, remediation efficacy for both standard functionality tests and security tests, and participant perception will be evaluated. [Pilot Study:] A pilot experiment with a small sample of participants has been conducted, providing insights for the following study.

LLMs for Qualitative Data Analysis Fail on Security-specificComments in Human Experiments

[Background:] Thematic analysis of free-text justifications in human experiments provides significant qualitative insights. Yet, it is costly because reliable annotations require multiple domain experts. Large language models (LLMs) seem ideal candidates to replace human annotators. [Problem:] Coding security-specific aspects (code identifiers mentioned, lines-of-code mentioned, security keywords mentioned) may require deeper contextual understanding than sentiment classification. [Objective:] Explore whether LLMs can act as automated annotators for technical security comments by human subjects. [Method:] We prompt four top-performing LLMs on LiveBench to detect nine security-relevant codes in free-text comments by human subjects analyzing vulnerable code snippets. Outputs are compared to human annotators using Cohen's Kappa (chance-corrected accuracy). We test different prompts mimicking annotation best practices, including emerging codes, detailed codebooks with examples, and conflicting examples. [Negative Results:] We observed marked improvements only when using detailed code descriptions; however, these improvements are not uniform across codes and are insufficient to reliably replace a human annotator. [Limitations:] Additional studies with more LLMs and annotation tasks are needed.