Summary Security Weaknesses of Copilot Generated Code arxiv.org
11,334 words - PDF document - View PDF document
One Line
GitHub Copilot's code snippets have security weaknesses, such as OS Command Injection and insufficiently random values, requiring developers to assess code for security risks despite its productivity advantages.
Slides
Slide Presentation (11 slides)
Key Points
- 35.8% of code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot contained security weaknesses across multiple programming languages.
- The most frequently occurring security weaknesses were OS Command Injection, Use of Insufficiently Random Values, and Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions.
- The study identified 42 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types associated with the security weaknesses in Copilot-generated code.
- 11 of the identified CWEs belonged to the currently recognized 2022 CWE Top-25.
- Developers using Copilot should be cautious and run appropriate security checks on the generated code.
- The study emphasizes the need for developers to understand common CWEs and how to safely accept code suggestions provided by Copilot.
- Additional security assessments and fixes are necessary to ensure that the generated code does not introduce potential security risks.
- Developers should conduct their own assessment of the generated code, exercise caution when relying on Copilot's suggestions, and use security analysis tools to check the code before integration.
Summaries
32 word summary
An analysis of GitHub Copilot's code snippets found that 35.8% had security weaknesses, including OS Command Injection and insufficiently random values. Developers should evaluate code for security risks despite Copilot's productivity benefits.
66 word summary
An empirical study analyzed 435 code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot and found that 35.8% of them contained security weaknesses. The most common weaknesses were OS Command Injection, Use of Insufficiently Random Values, and Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions. The study identified 42 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types. While Copilot can increase productivity, developers should assess and analyze the code for security risks.
137 word summary
An empirical study analyzed the security weaknesses in code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot. 435 code snippets from public GitHub projects were collected and analyzed for security weaknesses using static analysis tools. The results showed that 35.8% of the code snippets contained security weaknesses across six programming languages supported by Copilot. The most common security weaknesses were OS Command Injection, Use of Insufficiently Random Values, and Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions. The study identified 42 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types associated with the security weaknesses, with 11 of them included in the MITRE CWE Top-25 list. Additionally, 31 other CWEs were present in the code snippets. The study concluded that while Copilot can increase productivity, developers should conduct their own assessment and use security analysis tools to check the code for potential security risks.
464 word summary
Researchers conducted an empirical study to analyze the security weaknesses in code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot. They collected 435 code snippets from publicly available projects on GitHub and conducted extensive security analysis using static analysis tools. The results showed that 35.8% of the generated code snippets contained security weaknesses across multiple programming languages. The security weaknesses were diverse and related to 42 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) instances, with OS Command Injection, Use of Insufficiently Random Values, and Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions occurring most frequently. Additionally, 11 of the identified CWEs belonged to the currently recognized 2022 CWE Top-25.
The study analyzed the security weaknesses present in code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot. A total of 435 code snippets were collected from public GitHub projects and analyzed for security weaknesses using static analysis tools. The results showed that 35.8% of the code snippets contained security weaknesses, and these weaknesses were found across six programming languages supported by Copilot. The most frequently occurring security weakness was OS Command Injection, followed by Use of Insufficiently Random Values, Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions, Uncontrolled Resource Consumption, and Deserialization of Untrusted Data.
The study identified 42 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types associated with the security weaknesses in Copilot-generated code. These CWEs covered a diverse range of security issues, indicating that developers using Copilot face various security risks. The study also found that 11 of these CWEs were included in the MITRE CWE Top-25 list, which signifies their commonality and severity.
In addition to the CWE Top-25 weaknesses, the study also identified 31 other CWEs that were present in the code snippets. Although these less common security weaknesses may not be as widespread, they can still be exploited by attackers. Developers should be aware of these vulnerabilities and take steps to protect their code.
The study concluded that while Copilot can help developers write code faster and increase productivity, additional security assessments and fixes are necessary to ensure that the generated code does not introduce potential security risks. Developers should conduct their own assessment of the generated code, exercise caution when relying on Copilot's suggestions, and use security analysis tools to check the code before integration.
The study provides valuable insights into the security weaknesses present in Copilot-generated code and highlights the importance of developers maintaining vigilance and caution when programming. By understanding the types of security issues and their frequency of occurrence, developers can take proactive measures to prevent and address these weaknesses in an informed manner.
In future work, the researchers plan to collect more diverse code snippets from different platforms to increase the generalizability of the results. They also intend to analyze the application scenarios of the code snippets and compare the results with other AI code generation tools.
594 word summary
Researchers conducted an empirical study to analyze the security weaknesses in code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot, a code generation tool that uses AI models. The goal was to investigate the types and scale of security issues in real-world scenarios. They collected 435 code snippets from publicly available projects on GitHub and conducted extensive security analysis using static analysis tools. The results showed that 35.8% of the generated code snippets contained security weaknesses across multiple programming languages. The security weaknesses were diverse and related to 42 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) instances, with OS Command Injection, Use of Insufficiently Random Values, and Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions occurring most frequently. Additionally, 11 of the identified CWEs belonged to the currently recognized 2022 CWE Top-25. The findings highlight the need for developers to be cautious when adding code generated by Copilot and to run appropriate security checks. The study contributes to understanding common CWEs and how to safely accept code suggestions provided by Copilot.
The study analyzed the security weaknesses present in code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot. A total of 435 code snippets were collected from public GitHub projects and analyzed for security weaknesses using static analysis tools. The results showed that 35.8% of the code snippets contained security weaknesses, and these weaknesses were found across six programming languages supported by Copilot. The most frequently occurring security weakness was OS Command Injection, followed by Use of Insufficiently Random Values, Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions, Uncontrolled Resource Consumption, and Deserialization of Untrusted Data.
The study identified 42 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types associated with the security weaknesses in Copilot-generated code. These CWEs covered a diverse range of security issues, indicating that developers using Copilot face various security risks. The study also found that 11 of these CWEs were included in the MITRE CWE Top-25 list, which signifies their commonality and severity. Developers using Copilot should pay close attention to these frequently occurring weaknesses and take appropriate measures to address them.
In addition to the CWE Top-25 weaknesses, the study also identified 31 other CWEs that were present in the code snippets. Although these less common security weaknesses may not be as widespread, they can still be exploited by attackers. Developers should be aware of these vulnerabilities and take steps to protect their code.
The study acknowledged several threats to validity, including the use of a keyword-based search to collect code snippets, manual data filtering, and manual association of CWEs. However, these threats were mitigated through iterative refinement of keywords, careful screening of code snippets, and multiple authors conducting the association of CWEs.
The study concluded that while Copilot can help developers write code faster and increase productivity, additional security assessments and fixes are necessary to ensure that the generated code does not introduce potential security risks. Developers should conduct their own assessment of the generated code, exercise caution when relying on Copilot's suggestions, and use security analysis tools to check the code before integration.
The study provides valuable insights into the security weaknesses present in Copilot-generated code and highlights the importance of developers maintaining vigilance and caution when programming. By understanding the types of security issues and their frequency of occurrence, developers can take proactive measures to prevent and address these weaknesses in an informed manner.
In future work, the researchers plan to collect more diverse code snippets from different platforms to increase the generalizability of the results. They also intend to analyze the application scenarios of the code snippets and compare the results with other AI code generation tools.