Security vulnerabilities impose significant costs on users and organizations. Detecting and addressing these vulnerabilities early is crucial to avoid exploits and reduce development costs. Recent studies have shown that deep learning models can effectively detect security vulnerabilities. Yet, little research explores how to adapt these models from benchmark tests to practical applications, and whether they can be useful in practice. This paper presents the first empirical study of a vulnerability detection and fix tool with professional software developers on real projects that they own. We implemented DeepVulguard, an IDE-integrated tool based on state-of-the-art detection and fix models, and show that it has promising performance on benchmarks of historic vulnerability data. DeepVulguard scans code for vulnerabilities (including identifying the vulnerability type and vulnerable region of code), suggests fixes, provides natural-language explanations for alerts and fixes, leveraging chat interfaces. We recruited 17 professional software developers at Microsoft, observed their usage of the tool on their code, and conducted interviews to assess the tool's usefulness, speed, trust, relevance, and workflow integration. We also gathered detailed qualitative feedback on users' perceptions and their desired features. Study participants scanned a total of 24 projects, 6.9 k files, and over 1.7 million lines of source code, and generated 170 alerts and 50 fix suggestions. We find that although state-of-the-art AI-powered detection and fix tools show promise, they are not yet practical for real-world use due to a high rate of false positives and non-applicable fixes. User feedback reveals several actionable pain points, ranging from incomplete context to lack of customization for the user's codebase. Additionally, we explore how AI features, including confidence scores, explanations, and chat interaction, can apply to vulnerability detection and fixing. Based on these insights, we offer practical recommendations for evaluating and deploying AI detection and fix models. Our code and data are available at this link: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26367139.

Most existing pre-trained language models for source code focus on learning the static code text, typically augmented with static code structures (abstract syntax tree, dependency graphs, etc.). However, program semantics will not be fully exposed before the real execution. Without an understanding of the program execution, statically pre-trained models fail to comprehensively capture the dynamic code properties, such as the branch coverage and the runtime variable values, and they are consequently less effective at code understanding tasks, such as retrieving semantic clones and detecting software vulnerabilities.

Deep learning-based vulnerability detection has shown great performance and, in some studies, outperformed static analysis tools. However, the highest-performing approaches use token-based transformer models, which are not the most efficient to capture code semantics required for vulnerability detection. Classical program analysis techniques such as dataflow analysis can detect many types of bugs based on their root causes. In this paper, we propose to combine such causal-based vulnerability detection algorithms with deep learning, aiming to achieve more efficient and effective vulnerability detection. Specifically, we designed DeepDFA, a dataflow analysis-inspired graph learning framework and an embedding technique that enables graph learning to simulate dataflow computation. We show that DeepDFA is both performant and efficient. DeepDFA outperformed all non-transformer baselines. It was trained in 9 minutes, 75x faster than the highest-performing baseline model. When using only 50+ vulnerable and several hundreds of total examples as training data, the model retained the same performance as 100% of the dataset. DeepDFA also generalized to real-world vulnerabilities in DbgBench; it detected 8.7 out of 17 vulnerabilities on average across folds and was able to distinguish between patched and buggy versions, while the highest-performing baseline models did not detect any vulnerabilities. By combining DeepDFA with a large language model, we surpassed the state-of-the-art vulnerability detection performance on the Big-Vul dataset with 96.46 F1 score, 97.82 precision, and 95.14 recall. Our replication package is located at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21225413.

Deep learning (DL) models of code have recently reported great progress for vulnerability detection. In some cases, DL-based models have outperformed static analysis tools. Although many great models have been proposed, we do not yet have a good understanding of these models. This limits the further advancement of model robustness, debugging, and deployment for the vulnerability detection. In this paper, we surveyed and reproduced 9 state-of-the-art (SOTA) deep learning models on 2 widely used vulnerability detection datasets: Devign and MSR. We investigated 6 research questions in three areas, namely model capabilities, training data, and model interpretation. We experimentally demonstrated the variability between different runs of a model and the low agreement among different models' outputs. We investigated models trained for specific types of vulnerabilities compared to a model that is trained on all the vulnerabilities at once. We explored the types of programs DL may consider “hard” to handle. We investigated the relations of training data sizes and training data composition with model performance. Finally, we studied model interpretations and analyzed important features that the models used to make predictions. We believe that our findings can help better understand model results, provide guidance on preparing training data, and improve the robustness of the models. All of our datasets, code, and results are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20791240.

Static analysis is an important approach for finding bugs and vulnerabilities in software. However, inspecting and confirming static warnings are challenging and time-consuming. In this paper, we present a novel solution that automatically generates test cases based on static warnings to validate true and false positives. We designed a syntactic patching algorithm that can generate syntactically valid, semantic preserving executable code fragments from static warnings. We developed a build and testing system to automatically test code fragments using fuzzers, KLEE and Valgrind. We evaluated our techniques using 12 real-world C projects and 1955 warnings from two commercial static analysis tools. We successfully built 68.5% code fragments and generated 1003 test cases. Through automatic testing, we identified 48 true positives and 27 false positives, and 205 likely false positives. We matched 4 CVE and real-world bugs using Helium, and they are only triggered by our tool but not other baseline tools. We found that testing code fragments is scalable and useful; it can trigger bugs that testing entire programs or testing procedures failed to trigger.