Vibe Coding and Web Application Security: A Twin-Prompt Study
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models increasingly generate complete web applications from natural-language prompts, raising the question of whether explicitly requesting security best practice improves the result. We study six functionally distinct web applications, each generated in two prompt variants that are identical except for an appended security-requirements section: a baseline (A) and a security-aware (B) variant. All twelve programs were produced by the same agentic coding assistant and the same model version in a single, non-iterative generation round, and were then analyzed with static, dependency, dynamic and manual techniques, yielding 75 confirmed findings out of 85 candidates. The security-aware variant produced fewer confirmed findings in every application (24 versus 51) and contained no Critical or High issues; the most severe finding was detected only by manual testing. Because the corpus is small and each variant was generated once, we report descriptive observations rather than statistically established effects, and position the work as a preliminary study whose pipeline is being scaled to multiple models and repeated runs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.
Builds on
10 of 22 references.
References · 10
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
- 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 192
- 2022Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistantscited by 91
- 2023How Secure is Code Generated by ChatGPT?cited by 81
- 2022Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code?cited by 67
- 2025BaxBench: Can LLMs Generate Correct and Secure Backends?cited by 41
- 2023Security Weaknesses of Copilot-Generated Code in GitHub Projects: An Empirical Studycited by 38
- 2024Prompting Techniques for Secure Code Generation: A Systematic Investigationcited by 34
- 2025Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Taskscited by 22
- 2025Security Degradation in Iterative AI Code Generation -- A Systematic Analysis of the Paradoxcited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Generated Code Security Across Prompting Methods
- 2026Code as a Weapon: A Consensus-Labeled Prompt Bank for Measuring Coding-Model Compliance with Malicious-Code Requests
- 2025A Systematic Study on Generating Web Vulnerability Proof-of-Concepts Using Large Language Models
- 2026Context Before Code: An Experience Report on Vibe Coding in Practice
- 2026SoK: AI Secure Code Generation: Progress, Pitfalls, and Paths Forward
- 2026Usability as a Weapon: Attacking the Safety of LLM-Based Code Generation via Usability Requirements ↗
- 2025Explicit Vulnerability Generation with LLMs: An Investigation Beyond Adversarial Attacks
- 2026Security-by-Design for LLM-Based Code Generation: Leveraging Internal Representations for Concept-Driven Steering Mechanisms