arXiv Machine Learning By Nils Loose, Joseph Bienh\"uls, Kristoffer Hempel, Felix M\"achtle, Thomas Eisenbarth

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Code Language Models for Security Patch Detection

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2605. 13138v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated detection of vulnerability-fixing commits (\vfcs) is critical for timely security patch deployment, as advisory databases lag patch releases by a median of 25 days and many fixes never receive advisories.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 19

Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?

The paper introduces Porting Benchmark, a curated dataset of 1,234 security patch backporting cases that span cross-version, cross-branch, and cross-repository scenarios, along with a common evaluation framework. Five tools—spanning program analysis, LLM prompting, and LLM agents—are evaluated under aligned settings, revealing that performance varies significantly across tools and that complex patches (Type-IV) see a sharp drop in success rate. The study identifies four root-cause categories for failures and demonstrates that reference-based benchmark scores may not fully capture real-world remediation, as executable validation uncovers additional integration issues.

By Jincheng Yang, Yulong Fu, Chengwei Liu, Lyuye Zhang, Fangyuan Zhang, Bingyang Ren, Yang Liu, Hui Li
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 18

Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?

The paper introduces Porting Benchmark, a dataset of 1,234 security patch backporting cases covering cross-version, cross-branch, and cross-repository scenarios, along with a unified evaluation framework. Five tools—spanning program analysis, LLM prompting, and LLM agents—are evaluated under aligned settings, revealing that performance varies significantly across tools and patch complexity, with success rates dropping sharply for structurally complex patches. The study identifies four root-cause categories for failures and demonstrates that reference-based benchmark scores may not fully reflect real-world remediation, as executable validation uncovers additional integration issues.

arXiv Machine Learning
5d ago

What Do They Fix? LLM-Aided Categorization of Security Patches for Critical Memory Bugs

The paper introduces DUALLM, a dual-method pipeline that uses a Large Language Model and a fine‑tuned small language model to classify Linux kernel security patches with high precision. By analyzing commit titles, messages, diffs, and code context, DUALLM achieves 87.4% accuracy and an F1‑score of 0.875, outperforming existing methods. It successfully identified 111 recent patches addressing out‑of‑bounds or use‑after‑free vulnerabilities, with 90 confirmed true positives and proof‑of‑concept exploits demonstrating the validity of the classifications.

By Xingyu Li (UC Riverside), Juefei Pu (UC Riverside), Yifan Wu (UC Riverside), Xiaochen Zou (UC Riverside), Shitong Zhu (UC Riverside), Qiushi Wu (UC Riverside), Zheng Zhang (UC Riverside), Joshua Hsu (UC Riverside), Yue Dong (UC Riverside), Zhiyun Qian (UC Riverside), Kangjie Lu (UC Riverside), Trent Jaeger (UC Riverside), Michael De Lucia (UC Riverside), Srikanth V. Krishnamurthy (UC Riverside)