Backdoors in Code Summarizers: How Bad Is It?

Code LLMs are increasingly employed in software development. However, studies have shown that they are vulnerable to backdoor attacks: when a trigger (a specific input pattern) appears in the input, the backdoor will be activated and cause the model to generate malicious outputs. Researchers have designed various triggers and demonstrated the feasibility of implanting backdoors by poisoning a fraction of the training data. Some basic conclusions have been made, such as backdoors becoming easier to implant when more training data is modified. However, existing research has not explored other factors influencing backdoor attacks on Code LLMs, such as training batch size, epoch number, and the broader design space for triggers, e.g., trigger length. To bridge this gap, we use code summarization as an example to perform an empirical study that systematically investigates the factors affecting backdoor effectiveness and understands the extent of the threat posed. Three categories of factors are considered: data, model, and inference, revealing previously overlooked findings. We find that the prevailing consensus -- that attacks are ineffective at extremely low poisoning rates -- is incorrect. The absolute number of poisoned samples matters as well. Specifically, poisoning just 20 out of 454K samples (0.004% poisoning rate -- far below the minimum setting of 0.1% in prior studies) successfully implants backdoors! Moreover, the common defense is incapable of removing even a single poisoned sample from it. Additionally, small batch sizes increase the risk of backdoor attacks. We also uncover other critical factors such as trigger types, trigger length, and the rarity of tokens in the triggers, leading to valuable insights for assessing Code LLMs' vulnerability to backdoor attacks. Our study highlights the urgent need for defense mechanisms against extremely low poisoning rate settings.