On the Effectiveness of Function-Level Vulnerability Detectors for Inter-Procedural Vulnerabilities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Software vulnerabilities are a major cyber threat and it is important to detect them. One important approach to detecting vulnerabilities is to use deep learning while treating a program function as a whole, known as function-level vulnerability detectors. However, the limitation of this approach is not understood. In this paper, we investigate its limitation in detecting one class of vulnerabilities known as inter-procedural vulnerabilities, where the to-be-patched statements and the vulnerability-triggering statements belong to different functions. For this purpose, we create the first Inter-Procedural Vulnerability Dataset (InterPVD) based on C/C++ open-source software, and we propose a tool dubbed VulTrigger for identifying vulnerability-triggering statements across functions. Experimental results show that VulTrigger can effectively identify vulnerability-triggering statements and inter-procedural vulnerabilities. Our findings include: (i) inter-procedural vulnerabilities are prevalent with an average of 2.8 inter-procedural layers; and (ii) function-level vulnerability detectors are much less effective in detecting to-be-patched functions of inter-procedural vulnerabilities than detecting their counterparts of intra-procedural vulnerabilities.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 18 Jan 2024.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.
10 papers.
- 2024Top Score on the Wrong Exam: On Benchmarking in Machine Learning for Vulnerability Detectioncited by 27
- 2024Multi-role Consensus through LLMs Discussions for Vulnerability Detectioncited by 19
- 2026Sifting the Noise: A Comparative Study of LLM Agents in Vulnerability False Positive Filteringcited by 5
- 2025A Systematic Study of Code Obfuscation Against LLM-based Vulnerability Detectioncited by 4
- 2026From SFT to RL: Demystifying the Post-Training Pipeline for LLM-based Vulnerability Detectioncited by 4
- 2026AutoTrace: From Patches to Triggers via Agentic Interprocedural Explorationcited by 1
- 2024Direction for Detection: A Survey of Automated Vulnerability Detection and all of its Pain Pointscited by 0
- 2025Today's Cat Is Tomorrow's Dog: Accounting for Time-Based Changes in the Labels of ML Vulnerability Detection Approachescited by 0
- 2025On the Effectiveness of Instruction-Tuning Local LLMs for Identifying Software Vulnerabilitiescited by 0
- 2026Vulnerability Localization Benchmark: Measuring Agentic Security Analysis at Repository Scalecited by 0
- 2026Vulnerability Localization Benchmark: Measuring Agentic Security Analysis at Repository Scale14 Sep 2026
- 2026AutoTrace: From Patches to Triggers via Agentic Interprocedural Exploration13 Jul 2026
- 2026From SFT to RL: Demystifying the Post-Training Pipeline for LLM-based Vulnerability Detection15 Feb 2026
- 2026Sifting the Noise: A Comparative Study of LLM Agents in Vulnerability False Positive Filtering30 Jan 2026
- 2025On the Effectiveness of Instruction-Tuning Local LLMs for Identifying Software Vulnerabilities23 Dec 2025
- 2025A Systematic Study of Code Obfuscation Against LLM-based Vulnerability Detection18 Dec 2025
- 2025Today's Cat Is Tomorrow's Dog: Accounting for Time-Based Changes in the Labels of ML Vulnerability Detection Approaches13 Jun 2025
- 2024Direction for Detection: A Survey of Automated Vulnerability Detection and all of its Pain Points15 Dec 2024
- 2024Top Score on the Wrong Exam: On Benchmarking in Machine Learning for Vulnerability Detection23 Aug 2024
- 2024Multi-role Consensus through LLMs Discussions for Vulnerability Detection21 Mar 2024