Fuzz testing is a crucial component of software security assessment, yet its effectiveness heavily relies on valid fuzz drivers and diverse seed inputs. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer transformative potential for automating fuzz testing (LLM4Fuzz), particularly in generating drivers and seeds. However, current LLM4Fuzz solutions face critical reliability challenges, including low driver validity rates and seed quality trade-offs, hindering their practical adoption. This paper aims to examine the reliability bottlenecks of LLM-driven fuzzing and explores potential research directions to address these limitations. It begins with an overview of the current development of LLM4SE and emphasizes the necessity for developing reliable LLM4Fuzz solutions. Following this, the paper envisions a vision where reliable LLM4Fuzz transforms the landscape of software testing and security for industry, software development practitioners, and economic accessibility. It then outlines a road ahead for future research, identifying key challenges and offering specific suggestions for the researchers to consider. This work strives to spark innovation in the field, positioning reliable LLM4Fuzz as a fundamental component of modern software testing.

Data augmentation techniques apply transformations to existing texts to generate additional data. The transformations may produce low-quality texts, where the meaning of the text is changed and the text may even be mangled beyond human comprehension. Analyzing the synthetically generated texts and their corresponding labels is slow and demanding. To winnow out texts with incorrect labels, we develop INSPECTOR, a human-in-the-loop data inspection technique. INSPECTOR combines the strengths of provenance tracking techniques with assistive labeling. INSPECTOR allows users to group related texts by their transformation provenance, i.e., the transformations applied to the original text, or feature provenance, the linguistic features of the original text. For assistive labeling, INSPECTOR computes metrics that approximate data quality, and allows users to compare the corresponding label of each text against the predictions of a large language model. In a user study, INSPECTOR increases the number of texts with correct labels identified by 3X on a sentiment analysis task and by 4X on a hate speech detection task. The participants found grouping the synthetically generated texts by their common transformation to be the most useful technique. Surprisingly, grouping texts by common linguistic features was perceived to be unhelpful. Contrary to prior work, our study finds that no single technique obviates the need for human inspection effort. This validates the design of INSPECTOR which combines both analysis of data provenance and assistive labeling to reduce human inspection effort.

With the increasing reliance on Open Source Software, users are exposed to third-party library vulnerabilities. Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools have been created to alert users of such vulnerabilities. SCA requires the identification of vulnerability-fixing commits. Prior works have proposed methods that can automatically identify such vulnerability-fixing commits. However, identifying such commits is highly challenging, as only a very small minority of commits are vulnerability fixing. Moreover, code changes can be noisy and difficult to analyze. We observe that noise can occur at different levels of detail, making it challenging to detect vulnerability fixes accurately. To address these challenges and boost the effectiveness of prior works, we propose MiDas (Multi-Granularity Detector for Vulnerability Fixes). Unique from prior works, Midas constructs different neural networks for each level of code change granularity, corresponding to commit-level, file-level, hunk-level, and line-level, following their natural organization. It then utilizes an ensemble model that combines all base models to generate the final prediction. This design allows MiDas to better handle the noisy and highly imbalanced nature of vulnerability-fixing commit data. Additionally, to reduce the human effort required to inspect code changes, we have designed an effort-aware adjustment for Midas's outputs based on commit length. The evaluation results demonstrate that MiDas outperforms the current state-of-the-art baseline in terms of AUC by 4.9% and 13.7% on Java and Python-based datasets, respectively. Furthermore, in terms of two effort-aware metrics, EffortCost@L and Popt@L, MiDas also outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline, achieving improvements of up to 28.2% and 15.9% on Java, and 60% and 51.4% on Python, respectively.

Automatically generated static code warnings suffer from a large number of false alarms. Hence, developers only take action on a small percent of those warnings. To better predict which static code warnings should not be ignored, we suggest that analysts need to look deeper into their algorithms to find choices that better improve the particulars of their specific problem. Specifically, we show here that effective predictors of such warnings can be created by methods that locally adjust the decision boundary (between actionable warnings and others). These methods yield a new high water-mark for recognizing actionable static code warnings. For eight open-source Java projects (cassandra, jmeter, commons, lucene-solr, maven, ant, tomcat, derby) we achieve perfect test results on 4/8 datasets and, overall, a median AUC (area under the true negatives, true positives curve) of 92%.

Open-source software (OSS) vulnerability management process is important nowadays, as the number of discovered OSS vulnerabilities is increasing over time. Monitoring vulnerability-fixing commits is a part of the standard process to prevent vulnerability exploitation. Manually detecting vulnerability-fixing commits is, however, time consuming due to the possibly large number of commits to review. Recently, many techniques have been proposed to automatically detect vulnerability-fixing commits using machine learning. These solutions either: (1) did not use deep learning, or (2) use deep learning on only limited sources of information. This paper proposes VulCurator, a tool that leverages deep learning on richer sources of information, including commit messages, code changes and issue reports for vulnerability-fixing commit classifica- tion. Our experimental results show that VulCurator outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines up to 16.1% in terms of F1-score. VulCurator tool is publicly available at https://github.com/ntgiang71096/VFDetector and https://zenodo.org/record/7034132#.Yw3MN-xBzDI, with a demo video at https://youtu.be/uMlFmWSJYOE.