arXiv:2412.11194cs.SEcs.AI2024-12综述被引 1

系统梳理自动化漏洞检测的12大痛点,揭示研究困局根源

Direction for Detection: A Survey of Automated Vulnerability Detection and all of its Pain Points

  • 从87篇论文中归纳问题定义、数据集与评估指标的共性缺陷
  • 发现12个相互强化的痛点导致研究长期聚焦于C/C++函数级二分类
  • 提出可操作建议并以AIxCC为例验证改进路径,适配智能编程时代

软件安全漏洞后果严重,但人工检测成本高且难以扩展,尤其在智能编码框架加速代码生成的背景下。过去十年,大量研究尝试用机器学习实现自动化漏洞检测(ML4AVD),但在主流数据集上的自报性能未见明显提升。尽管研究社区已识别出问题定义、数据集和评估指标中的诸多缺陷,但这些讨论彼此孤立,未能触及根本性系统问题。本文通过对87篇有影响力的工作进行系统分析,涵盖问题定义、输入与检测粒度、目标语言、评估指标、数据集和检测方法,提炼出贯穿整个ML4AVD流程的12个痛点。这些痛点相互耦合、自我强化,形成反馈循环,解释了为何领域长期集中在对C/C++函数级漏洞的二分类任务上,忽视了漏洞类型预测、多语言支持以及输入与检测粒度分离等关键方向。针对每个痛点,本文提出具体改进建议以打破循环。最后以近期高关注度的AIxCC为案例,评估其是否符合上述建议,并反思在智能代理时代下ML4AVD的现实意义。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Security vulnerabilities in software can have severe consequences; however, manual vulnerability detection is costly and does not scale, especially as agentic coding frameworks increase the rate of code production. Over the last decade, a large body of research has applied machine learning machine learning to automate vulnerability detection (ML4AVD), yet self-reported performance on the most popular datasets shows no clear upward trend. The ML4AVD research community has identified several flaws in problem formulations, datasets, and metrics, but these are discussed in isolation, leaving the overarching problems that generate and reinforce these flaws unaddressed. We first systematize the field through a survey of 87 influential works based on their problem formulation, input and detection granularity, target programming languages, evaluation metrics, datasets, and detection approach. Drawing on this corpus and prior empirical work, we identify twelve pain points spanning the ML4AVD pipeline and show that they are self-reinforcing and causally inter-meshed: feedback loops between datasets, formulations, baselines, and metrics perpetuate each other and explain the field's persistent concentration on binary classification of C/C++ vulnerabilities at the function level. Thus, the field optimizes for a narrow and artificial problem that omits vulnerability type prediction, broader language support, and separation of input from detection granularity. We pair each pain point with concrete recommendations to break these loops. Finally, we use AIxCC as a case study to assess how well a recent high-profile effort aligns with these recommendations and reflect on the relevance of ML4AVD in the era of agentic AI.

漏洞检测机器学习安全研究智能编程

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。