It is found that developers rarely raised security concerns when engaging with Copilot, and many did not recognize that their final implementations remained insecure, so future research directions to support safer AI-assisted software development are proposed.
Abstract
AI code assistants are transforming software development, but their implications for software security remain a major concern, particularly in the context of security APIs. These APIs are critical for safeguarding software systems, yet their complexity often leads to incorrect use and serious vulnerabilities. Developing an evidence-based understanding of how AI assistants influence developers'use of these APIs is therefore essential for informing effective mitigation strategies. While a few user studies have examined the broader impact of AI assistants on software vulnerabilities, the use of security APIs remains unexplored from a developer-centered perspective. This study addresses this gap by presenting the first empirical investigation into how AI code assistants affect professional developers'use of security APIs. We conducted a study with 44 developers who completed security API programming tasks with and without GitHub Copilot assistance. Our findings show that, while Copilot improves functional correctness and marginally reduces certain insecure patterns, it does not significantly improve secure API usage. We also found that developers rarely raised security concerns when engaging with Copilot, and many did not recognize that their final implementations remained insecure. Finally, we offer recommendations for enhancing security awareness among developers and propose future research directions to support safer AI-assisted software development.
Investigating the security vulnerabilities present in AI-generated JWT authentication code for Java Spring Boot Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interfaces (REST API) reinforces that AI-generated JSON Web Token (JWT) authentication code requires dedicated security review.
Hoang Long Nguyen, Mezid Hmudda, Benjamin Powley· 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
An approach integrating Ansible best practices and CIS benchmarks into prompts through an extended CO-STAR framework is introduced, enabling security smell prevention during synthesis rather than detection after deployment, leading to a fourfold improvement over humans at 23%-43%, with overall code quality improving by...
Pandu Ranga Reddy Konala, Vimal Kumar, David Bainbridge et al.· 0 citations
The findings suggest that, contrary to common assumptions, AI assistance may not improve the reliability of code comprehension and review, and highlight the importance of helping developers evaluate machine-generated reliability artifacts, in addition to generating them.
A codepath-aware governance framework for AI-assisted engineering in regulated codebases, with emphasis on financial services, payments, healthcare, and other domains where software changes may affect legal, operational, privacy, and audit obligations is developed.
Ashutosh Pal· International journal of com...· 0 citations
Recently, Developers have been relying on AI tools to support them in their daily work by generating code. While the use of large language model-based AI tools has improved productivity, the quality of the generated code wasn't always optimal. In a lot of cases, the code includes design issues known as code smells, whi...
Y. Younes, Yousef Elsheikh· IEEE Jordan Conference on Ap...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.