Abstract--The prevalence of security vulnerabilities has prompted companies to adopt static application security testing (SAST) tools for vulnerability detection. Nevertheless, these tools frequently exhibit usability limitations, as their generic warning messages do not sufficiently communicate important information to developers, resulting in misunderstandings or oversight of critical findings. In light of recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs) and their text generation capabilities, our work investigates a hybrid approach that uses LLMs to tackle the SAST explainability challenges. In this paper, we present SAFE, an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) plugin that leverages GPT -4o to explain the causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies of vulnerabilities detected by SAST tools. Our expert user study findings indicate that the explanations generated by SAFE can significantly assist beginner to intermediate developers in understanding and addressing security vulnerabilities, thereby improving the overall usability of SAST tools. With the rise in software security vulnerabilities such as those in the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses list [1], many companies resort to static application security testing (SAST) tools for the detection of software vulnerabilities.

A key challenge in security analysis is the manual evaluation of potential security weaknesses generated by static application security testing (SAST) tools. Numerous false positives (FPs) in these reports reduce the effectiveness of security analysis. We propose using Large Language Models (LLMs) to improve the assessment of SAST findings. We investigate the ability of LLMs to reduce FPs while trying to maintain a perfect true positive rate, using datasets extracted from the OWASP Benchmark (v1.2) and a real-world software project. Our results indicate that advanced prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency, substantially improve FP detection. Notably, some LLMs identified approximately 62.5% of FPs in the OWASP Benchmark dataset without missing genuine weaknesses. Combining detections from different LLMs would increase this FP detection to approximately 78.9%. Additionally, we demonstrate our approach's generalizability using a real-world dataset covering five SAST tools, three programming languages, and infrastructure files. The best LLM detected 33.85% of all FPs without missing genuine weaknesses, while combining detections from different LLMs would increase this detection to 38.46%. Our findings highlight the potential of LLMs to complement traditional SAST tools, enhancing automation and reducing resources spent addressing false alarms.

The code generation capabilities of large language models(LLMs) have emerged as a critical dimension in evaluating their overall performance. However, prior research has largely overlooked the security risks inherent in the generated code. In this work, we introduce SafeGenBench, a benchmark specifically designed to assess the security of LLM-generated code. The dataset encompasses a wide range of common software development scenarios and vulnerability types. Building upon this benchmark, we develop an automatic evaluation framework that leverages both static application security testing(SAST) and LLM-based judging to assess the presence of security vulnerabilities in model-generated code. Through the empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs on SafeGenBench, we reveal notable deficiencies in their ability to produce vulnerability-free code. Our findings highlight pressing challenges and offer actionable insights for future advancements in the secure code generation performance of LLMs. The data and code will be released soon.

Software vulnerabilities pose significant security challenges and potential risks to society, necessitating extensive efforts in automated vulnerability detection. There are two popular lines of work to address automated vulnerability detection. On one hand, Static Application Security Testing (SAST) is usually utilized to scan source code for security vulnerabilities, especially in industries. On the other hand, deep learning (DL)-based methods, especially since the introduction of large language models (LLMs), have demonstrated their potential in software vulnerability detection. However, there is no comparative study between SAST tools and LLMs, aiming to determine their effectiveness in vulnerability detection, understand the pros and cons of both SAST and LLMs, and explore the potential combination of these two families of approaches. In this paper, we compared 15 diverse SAST tools with 12 popular or state-of-the-art open-source LLMs in detecting software vulnerabilities from repositories of three popular programming languages: Java, C, and Python. The experimental results showed that SAST tools obtain low vulnerability detection rates with relatively low false positives, while LLMs can detect up 90\% to 100\% of vulnerabilities but suffer from high false positives. By further ensembling the SAST tools and LLMs, the drawbacks of both SAST tools and LLMs can be mitigated to some extent. Our analysis sheds light on both the current progress and future directions for software vulnerability detection.