# Vibe Coding and Web Application Security: A Twin-Prompt Study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20963 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20963/

## 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 (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.09293/) (2021)
- [Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03622/) (2022)
- [Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.09727/) (2022)
- [How Secure is Code Generated by ChatGPT?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09655/) (2023)
- [Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.04741/) (2022)
- [BaxBench: Can LLMs Generate Correct and Secure Backends?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11844/) (2025)
- [Security Weaknesses of Copilot-Generated Code in GitHub Projects: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02059/) (2023)
- [Prompting Techniques for Secure Code Generation: A Systematic Investigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.07064/) (2024)
- [Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.03262/) (2025)
- [Security Degradation in Iterative AI Code Generation -- A Systematic Analysis of the Paradox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11022/) (2025)

## 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.