Findings show that insecure code generation is not merely a collection of independent defects, but a structured and prompt-conditioned phenomenon, motivating cluster-aware verification and prompt-level intervention for safer LLM-assisted programming.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate code with security vulnerabilities, yet these weaknesses are rarely isolated: they often span multiple concern areas simultaneously, reflecting the cross-cutting nature of security in software. We present a framework that combines security-oriented Metamorphic Relations (MRs) with Association Rule (AR) mining to detect vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code, uncover their co-violation structure, and trace that structure back to prompt-level risk factors. We define nine MRs covering major CWE categories, including SQL injection, XSS, command injection, path traversal, hard-coded credentials, weak cryptography, and memory-safety errors, and apply them using an LLM-based judge to 3,700 code snippets generated by five open models from the LLMSecEval benchmark. The results show that 68.8% of snippets violate at least one MR, with hard-coded credentials (79.1%) and command injection (74.4%) among the most prevalent applicable failures. AR mining reveals strong cross-cutting co-violation patterns, notably that XSS and weak cryptography co-violations predict hard-coded credentials with 82.5% confidence (lift = 3.23), along with tightly coupled clusters linking authentication, credential handling, and cryptographic weakness, as well as input-handling and memory-safety failures. We then perform prompt-level risk analysis and find that database- and authentication-related prompts are strong predictors of broad cross-cutting insecurity, while 65.5% of prompts yield consistent violation outcomes across all five models. These findings show that insecure code generation is not merely a collection of independent defects, but a structured and prompt-conditioned phenomenon, motivating cluster-aware verification and prompt-level intervention for safer LLM-assisted programming.
The Security Mutation Score (SMS) is proposed, a metric that classifies mutant kills into semantic, functional, incidental, and crash categories using operator-aware heuristics, distinguishing genuine security awareness from coincidental detection.
This work systematically generates syntactic variants of security-relevant code generation prompts and evaluates their impact on code security across multiple open LLMs and programming languages, identifying prompt syntax as a concrete security control surface and providing actionable guidance for reducing vulnerabilit...
Matteo Cicalese, Antonio Della Porta, Stefano Lambiase et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) can rapidly generate web user interface (UI) code for intelligent multimedia applications, but the resulting code may contain avoidable client-side security weaknesses. This paper presents a security governance framework that combines pre-generation rule embedding, ESLint-based static analy...
Shu-Ning Ping, Guangchi Liu· 2026 International Conferenc...· 0 citations
This study presents RAVE-Code, a three-layer framework that calibrates the verification effort based on the risk associated with each detected weakness, and demonstrates how consistent two ESBMC configurations rather than agreement with an independent standard can be.
Maher Alharby, Ali Alssaiari· Computers, Materials & C...· 0 citations
A hybrid pipeline combining static vulnerability candidate selection using Latent Semantic Analysis with dynamic verification through Large Language Model-assisted fuzzing is presented, which reduces manual effort while still requiring human validation.
Kevin Nguyen, Dominik Schoop· International Conference on...· 0 citations
The risk is not tied to any particular model but rather to the task category, and organizations should ask not which tool to trust, but instead whether LLM-generated automation code should be deployed without review.
Shanna M. Kahn, John D. Hastings· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.