Security Vulnerabilities in AI-Generated Code: A Large-Scale Analysis of Public GitHub Repositories
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper presents a comprehensive empirical analysis of security vulnerabilities in AI-generated code across public GitHub repositories. We collected and analyzed 7,703 files explicitly attributed to four major AI tools: ChatGPT (91.52%), GitHub Copilot (7.50%), Amazon CodeWhisperer (0.52%), and Tabnine (0.46%). Using CodeQL static analysis, we identified 4,241 Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) instances across 77 distinct vulnerability types. Our findings reveal that while 87.9% of AI-generated code does not contain identifiable CWE-mapped vulnerabilities, significant patterns emerge regarding language-specific vulnerabilities and tool performance. Python consistently exhibited higher vulnerability rates (16.18%-18.50%) compared to JavaScript (8.66%-8.99%) and TypeScript (2.50%-7.14%) across all tools. We observed notable differences in security performance, with GitHub Copilot achieving better security density for Python (1,739 LOC per CWE) and TypeScript, while ChatGPT performed better for JavaScript. Additionally, we discovered widespread use of AI tools for documentation generation (39% of collected files), an understudied application with implications for software maintainability. These findings extend previous work with a significantly larger dataset and provide valuable insights for developing language-specific and context-aware security practices for the responsible integration of AI-generated code into software development workflows.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 30 Oct 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026What Breaks When LLMs Code? Characterizing Operational Safety Failures of Agentic Code Assistantscited by 3
- 2026VeriContest: A Competitive-Programming Benchmark for Verifiable Code Generationcited by 1
- 2026Securing AI-Generated Code: A Just-in-Time Vulnerability Detection and Remediation Pipelinecited by 0
- 2026The Vibe Shift in Software Engineering: Evaluating AI-Led Conversational Programming for Performance, Cognition, and Responsible Adoptioncited by 0
- 2026What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Codecited by 0
- 2026What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code11 Sep 2026
- 2026The Vibe Shift in Software Engineering: Evaluating AI-Led Conversational Programming for Performance, Cognition, and Responsible Adoption9 Sep 2026
- 2026Securing AI-Generated Code: A Just-in-Time Vulnerability Detection and Remediation Pipeline17 Aug 2026
- 2026What Breaks When LLMs Code? Characterizing Operational Safety Failures of Agentic Code Assistants29 May 2026
- 2026VeriContest: A Competitive-Programming Benchmark for Verifiable Code Generation8 May 2026