Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2411.03079v1

, , , , In the realm of software development, static application security testing (SAST) tools are crucial for detecting bugs early on and ensuring code quality. However, these tools often encounter a common issue of generating false positives, which can significantly slow down the development process. To address this challenge and enhance the effectiveness of SAST tools, automating false positive mitigation becomes essential. Previous attempts at mitigating false positives have involved utilizing static/dynamic analysis or machine learning techniques. With the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) that excel in understanding both natural language and code, there is newfound potential to improve the accuracy and usability of SAST tools. Despite this promise, existing LLM-based methods face shortcomings in two key areas. Firstly, when extracting code snippets related to warnings, these snippets tend to be cluttered with irrelevant control and data flows, leading to reduced precision. Secondly, critical code contexts are often omitted from these extractions, resulting in incomplete representations that can mislead LLMs and lead to inaccurate assessments. To ensure precise and complete code context is utilized effectively to guide LLMs in automatic false positive mitigation, a novel approach named LLM4FPM is proposed. This innovative methodology incorporates eCPG-Slicer as one of its core components, which constructs an extended code property graph and extracts line-level precise code context. Additionally, LLM4FPM integrates the FARF algorithm to build a file reference graph efficiently detect all files related to a warning in linear time. This enables eCPG-Slicer to gather comprehensive code context across these identified files. The efficacy of LLM4FPM was evaluated using the Juliet dataset where it demonstrated superior performance compared to baseline methods by achieving an F1 score exceeding 99% across various Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs). Notably, LLM4FPM leverages a free open-source model which not only avoids costly alternatives but also reduces inspection costs by up to $2758 per run on Juliet dataset with an average inspection time of 4.7 seconds per warning. This groundbreaking work underscores the critical importance of leveraging precise and complete code context while highlighting the immense potential that arises from combining program analysis with Large Language Models. By enhancing both the quality and efficiency of software development processes through such innovative approaches like LLM4FPM, strides towards more effective bug detection and improved code quality can be achieved within the software development landscape.

• - Static application security testing (SAST) tools are crucial for detecting bugs early on and ensuring code quality in software development.
• - Common issue of false positives in SAST tools can slow down the development process.
• - Automating false positive mitigation is essential to enhance the effectiveness of SAST tools.
• - Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential to improve accuracy and usability of SAST tools, but face shortcomings in extracting precise and complete code context.
• - Novel approach named LLM4FPM proposed to address these shortcomings by incorporating eCPG-Slicer for line-level precise code context extraction and FARF algorithm for efficient file reference graph construction.
• - LLM4FPM demonstrated superior performance compared to baseline methods with an F1 score exceeding 99% across various Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs).
• - LLM4FPM leverages a free open-source model, reducing inspection costs by up to $2758 per run on Juliet dataset with an average inspection time of 4.7 seconds per warning.
• - Importance of leveraging precise and complete code context highlighted for effective bug detection and improved code quality in software development processes.

SummaryStatic application security testing (SAST) tools help find mistakes early and make sure software is good. Sometimes SAST tools say there are problems when there aren't, which can slow down work. Fixing these wrong alerts automatically makes SAST tools better. Big Language Models (LLMs) can make SAST tools more accurate but have trouble understanding all the code details. A new idea called LLM4FPM uses special methods to understand code better and did very well in tests. Definitions- Static application security testing (SAST): Tools that check for mistakes in software before it's finished. - Bugs: Mistakes or problems in computer programs. - False positives: When a tool says there's a problem, but there isn't one. - Automating: Making something happen automatically without needing people to do it. - Large Language Models (LLMs): Advanced computer programs that can understand and generate human-like text. - Precise: Exact and detailed. - Complete code context: Understanding all the details and surroundings of a piece of code. - Baseline methods: Standard ways of doing things used for comparison. - F1 score: A measure of how well something works based on precision and recall rates. - Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs): A list of common software security weaknesses.

Introduction

In the world of software development, static application security testing (SAST) tools play a crucial role in detecting bugs and ensuring code quality. However, these tools often face a common challenge of generating false positives, which can significantly slow down the development process. To address this issue and enhance the effectiveness of SAST tools, automating false positive mitigation becomes essential. Previous attempts at mitigating false positives have involved utilizing static/dynamic analysis or machine learning techniques. However, with the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) that excel in understanding both natural language and code, there is newfound potential to improve the accuracy and usability of SAST tools.

The Problem: False Positives in SAST Tools

False positives are warnings generated by SAST tools that do not actually indicate a real vulnerability in the code. These warnings can be caused by various factors such as coding style preferences or complex control flow structures. While they may seem like minor annoyances at first glance, false positives can significantly impact software development processes. Firstly, they require developers to spend time investigating and addressing them instead of focusing on actual vulnerabilities. This leads to slower development cycles and increased costs for companies. Additionally, false positives can also lead to developer fatigue and decreased trust in SAST tools if they occur frequently.

The Solution: Automating False Positive Mitigation with LLMs

To overcome this challenge, researchers have proposed a novel approach named LLM4FPM (Large Language Model for False Positive Mitigation). This methodology leverages Large Language Models that excel in understanding both natural language and code to automatically mitigate false positives generated by SAST tools. However, existing LLM-based methods face shortcomings when it comes to extracting relevant code snippets related to warnings. These snippets tend to be cluttered with irrelevant control and data flows, leading to reduced precision. Additionally, critical code contexts are often omitted from these extractions, resulting in incomplete representations that can mislead LLMs and lead to inaccurate assessments. To address these issues, LLM4FPM incorporates eCPG-Slicer as one of its core components. This tool constructs an extended code property graph and extracts line-level precise code context. Additionally, LLM4FPM integrates the FARF algorithm to efficiently detect all files related to a warning in linear time. This enables eCPG-Slicer to gather comprehensive code context across these identified files.

Evaluation and Results

The efficacy of LLM4FPM was evaluated using the Juliet dataset, which contains various Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs). The results showed that LLM4FPM outperformed baseline methods by achieving an F1 score exceeding 99%. This demonstrates the superior performance of this approach in mitigating false positives generated by SAST tools. Notably, LLM4FPM leverages a free open-source model, making it accessible for developers without any costly alternatives. It also reduces inspection costs by up to $2758 per run on the Juliet dataset with an average inspection time of 4.7 seconds per warning. This makes it a cost-effective solution for companies looking to improve their software development processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, false positives generated by SAST tools can significantly impact software development processes and hinder progress towards bug detection and improved code quality. However, with innovative approaches like LLM4FPM that leverage precise and complete code context while combining program analysis with Large Language Models, strides towards more effective bug detection can be achieved within the software development landscape. By automating false positive mitigation with LLMs, developers can save time and resources while ensuring high-quality code in their projects.