Exploring the Limits of ChatGPT in Software Security Applications
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) have undergone rapid evolution and achieved remarkable results in recent times. OpenAI's ChatGPT, backed by GPT-3.5 or GPT-4, has gained instant popularity due to its strong capability across a wide range of tasks, including natural language tasks, coding, mathematics, and engaging conversations. However, the impacts and limits of such LLMs in system security domain are less explored. In this paper, we delve into the limits of LLMs (i.e., ChatGPT) in seven software security applications including vulnerability detection/repair, debugging, debloating, decompilation, patching, root cause analysis, symbolic execution, and fuzzing. Our exploration reveals that ChatGPT not only excels at generating code, which is the conventional application of language models, but also demonstrates strong capability in understanding user-provided commands in natural languages, reasoning about control and data flows within programs, generating complex data structures, and even decompiling assembly code. Notably, GPT-4 showcases significant improvements over GPT-3.5 in most security tasks. Also, certain limitations of ChatGPT in security-related tasks are identified, such as its constrained ability to process long code contexts.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 48 of its 153 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Dec 2023.
Builds on
48 of 153 references.
References · 48
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,592
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,391
- 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 894
- 2023Visual ChatGPT: Talking, Drawing and Editing with Visual Foundation Modelscited by 668
- 2023MM-REACT: Prompting ChatGPT for Multimodal Reasoning and Actioncited by 517
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
36 more
- 2020Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlationcited by 425
- 2023Mathematical Capabilities of ChatGPTcited by 268
- 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPTcited by 258
- 2023A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failurescited by 168
- 2018SequenceR: Sequence-to-Sequence Learning for End-to-End Program Repaircited by 145
- 2022Practical Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 133
- 2023Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for 0.42 each using ChatGPTcited by 125
- 2018Automated Vulnerability Detection in Source Code Using Deep Representation Learningcited by 114
- 2023InferFix: End-to-End Program Repair with LLMscited by 114
- 2023An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPTcited by 110
- 2023ChatGPT is not all you need. A State of the Art Review of large Generative AI modelscited by 86
- 2023How Secure is Code Generated by ChatGPT?cited by 81
- 2023Is ChatGPT the Ultimate Programming Assistant -- How far is it?cited by 76
- 2023Can GPT-4 Perform Neural Architecture Search?cited by 74
- 2019TBar: Revisiting Template-based Automated Program Repaircited by 65
- 2018The Art, Science, and Engineering of Fuzzing: A Surveycited by 62
- 2023Chat2VIS: Generating Data Visualisations via Natural Language using ChatGPT, Codex and GPT-3 Large Language Modelscited by 59
- 2021A Syntax-Guided Edit Decoder for Neural Program Repaircited by 57
- 2021Neural Program Repair with Execution-based Backpropagationcited by 50
- 2023Conversational Automated Program Repaircited by 41
- 2019DIRE: A Neural Approach to Decompiled Identifier Namingcited by 36
- 2023Large Language Models are Edge-Case Fuzzers: Testing Deep Learning Libraries via FuzzGPTcited by 36
- 2023Evaluation of ChatGPT Model for Vulnerability Detectioncited by 33
- 2023Can Large Language Models Play Text Games Well? Current State-of-the-Art and Open Questionscited by 30
- 2023Improving ChatGPT Prompt for Code Generationcited by 28
- 2021Augmenting Decompiler Output with Learned Variable Names and Typescited by 23
- 2023GPTutor: a ChatGPT-powered programming tool for code explanationcited by 23
- 2018Practical Program Repair via Bytecode Mutationcited by 19
- 2023Augmenting Greybox Fuzzing with Generative AIcited by 18
- 2018Angora: Efficient Fuzzing by Principled Searchcited by 15
- 2014Automatic Repair of Buggy If Conditions and Missing Preconditions with SMTcited by 7
- 2018Debloating Software through Piece-Wise Compilation and Loadingcited by 6
- 2019Matryoshka: Fuzzing Deeply Nested Branchescited by 4
- 2022Automatically Mitigating Vulnerabilities in Binary Programs via Partially Recompilable Decompilationcited by 4
- 2022IvySyn: Automated Vulnerability Discovery in Deep Learning Frameworkscited by 4
- 2013Mining Software Repair Models for Reasoning on the Search Space of Automated Program Fixingcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
6 papers.
- 2024Large Language Models for Cyber Security: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 68
- 2024Vul-RAG: Enhancing LLM-based Vulnerability Detection via Knowledge-level RAGcited by 68
- 2025Security and Quality in LLM-Generated Code: A Multi-Language, Multi-Model Analysiscited by 19
- 2024RTL-Breaker: Assessing the Security of LLMs against Backdoor Attacks on HDL Code Generationcited by 15
- 2026Reducing False Positives in Static Bug Detection with LLMs: An Empirical Study in Industrycited by 5
- 2026An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Generated Code Security Across Prompting Methodscited by 1
- 2026An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Generated Code Security Across Prompting Methods22 May 2026
- 2026Reducing False Positives in Static Bug Detection with LLMs: An Empirical Study in Industry26 Jan 2026
- 2025Security and Quality in LLM-Generated Code: A Multi-Language, Multi-Model Analysis3 Feb 2025
- 2024RTL-Breaker: Assessing the Security of LLMs against Backdoor Attacks on HDL Code Generation26 Nov 2024
- 2024Vul-RAG: Enhancing LLM-based Vulnerability Detection via Knowledge-level RAG17 Jun 2024
- 2024Large Language Models for Cyber Security: A Systematic Literature Review8 May 2024