Assessing the Software Security Comprehension of Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software development, but their level of software security expertise remains unclear. This work systematically evaluates the security comprehension of five leading LLMs: GPT-4o-Mini, GPT-5-Mini, Gemini-2.5-Flash, Llama-3.1, and Qwen-2.5, using Blooms Taxonomy as a framework. We assess six cognitive dimensions: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Our methodology integrates diverse datasets, including curated multiple-choice questions, vulnerable code snippets (SALLM), course assessments from an Introduction to Software Security course, real-world case studies (XBOW), and project-based creation tasks from a Secure Software Engineering course. Results show that while LLMs perform well on lower-level cognitive tasks such as recalling facts and identifying known vulnerabilities, their performance degrades significantly on higher-order tasks that require reasoning, architectural evaluation, and secure system creation. Beyond reporting aggregate accuracy, we introduce a software security knowledge boundary that identifies the highest cognitive level at which a model consistently maintains reliable performance. In addition, we identify 51 recurring misconception patterns exhibited by LLMs across Blooms levels.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 51 of its 106 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Dec 2025.
Builds on
51 of 106 references.
References · 51
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
- 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,391
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 399
- 2023Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?cited by 243
- 2019SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Codecited by 176
38 more
- 2018SequenceR: Sequence-to-Sequence Learning for End-to-End Program Repaircited by 145
- 2023Purple Llama CyberSecEval: A Secure Coding Benchmark for Language Modelscited by 138
- 2024Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Modelscited by 121
- 2021Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Modelscited by 105
- 2023LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarkscited by 97
- 2023Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programmingcited by 89
- 2024CyberSecEval 2: A Wide-Ranging Cybersecurity Evaluation Suite for Large Language Modelscited by 89
- 2023The Robots are Here: Navigating the Generative AI Revolution in Computing Educationcited by 86
- 2024DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Modelscited by 76
- 2024When LLMs Meet Cybersecurity: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 71
- 2020Code Prediction by Feeding Trees to Transformerscited by 70
- 2023LLMSecEval: A Dataset of Natural Language Prompts for Security Evaluationscited by 62
- 2023Knowledge of Knowledge: Exploring Known-Unknowns Uncertainty with Large Language Modelscited by 61
- 2023Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 59
- 2023CodeLMSec Benchmark: Systematically Evaluating and Finding Security Vulnerabilities in Black-Box Code Language Modelscited by 55
- 2024CyberMetric: A Benchmark Dataset based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Evaluating LLMs in Cybersecurity Knowledgecited by 55
- 2022CodeFill: Multi-token Code Completion by Jointly Learning from Structure and Naming Sequencescited by 50
- 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insightscited by 47
- 2024Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 40
- 2023SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Codecited by 39
- 2020Fast and Memory-Efficient Neural Code Completioncited by 38
- 2024Benchmarking Knowledge Boundary for Large Language Models: A Different Perspective on Model Evaluationcited by 38
- 2023SecQA: A Concise Question-Answering Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models in Computer Securitycited by 37
- 2024Teaching Large Language Models to Express Knowledge Boundary from Their Own Signalscited by 32
- 2024How Beginning Programmers and Code LLMs (Mis)read Each Othercited by 31
- 2023How to Teach Programming in the AI Era? Using LLMs as a Teachable Agent for Debuggingcited by 30
- 2024A Survey on the Honesty of Large Language Modelscited by 23
- 2024Perception of Knowledge Boundary for Large Language Models through Semi-open-ended Question Answeringcited by 20
- 2022M2TS: Multi-Scale Multi-Modal Approach Based on Transformer for Source Code Summarizationcited by 14
- 2023FRANC: A Lightweight Framework for High-Quality Code Generationcited by 14
- 2024SECURE: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Cybersecuritycited by 14
- 2024Large Language Models in Computer Science Education: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 13
- 2024eyeballvul: a future-proof benchmark for vulnerability detection in the wildcited by 6
- 2023The EarlyBIRD Catches the Bug: On Exploiting Early Layers of Encoder Models for More Efficient Code Classificationcited by 5
- 2025BloomAPR: A Bloom's Taxonomy-based Framework for Assessing the Capabilities of LLM-Powered APR Solutionscited by 5
- 2024Towards Integrating Emerging AI Applications in SE Educationcited by 4
- 2023Can LLMs Patch Security Issues?cited by 3
- 2019The CATS Hackathon: Creating and Refining Test Items for Cybersecurity Concept Inventoriescited by 2
50 most cited of 51 All 51 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.