Surgical Repair of Insecure Code Generation in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate source code containing vulnerabilities, yet little work studies the internal mechanisms that distinguish safe from vulnerable generation in them. In this work, we systematically perform a mechanistic interpretation of LLMs, aiming at both understanding how code safety-vs-vulnerability is represented or driven by components in an LM and turning the insights into actionable steering strategies to encourage safer code generation. To this end, we introduce CodeSec-Pairs, a dataset of 9,342 Python safe-and-vulnerable contrastive code pairs, sampled from Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Utilizing the dataset, we explore approaches to localize layers and attention heads that relate to code safety, and further experiment with different steering strategies for inference-time vulnerability reduction. In particular, we propose DuoSteer, a double-steering approach that simultaneously applies safety and code-correctness steering to attention heads. In experiments over five vulnerability types, DuoSteer leads to an average of -26.9% vulnerability rate reduction and +7.5% functional correctness improvement, which outperforms not only other steering variants but also prompting and supervised fine-tuning baselines. The advantage also replicates on Qwen-2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct with another 2,500 contrastive pairs sampled from that model.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, but their security reliability remains inconsistent across languages and prompting strategies. Existing prompt engineering improves functional correctness but rarely ensures consistent security outcomes. We introduce the \textit{Mitigation-Aware Chain-of-Thought (MA-CoT)} framework, which embeds task-specific CWE mitigation guidance and language-aware safeguards to reduce recurring vulnerabilities in generated code. We evaluate MA-CoT across three LLMs (gpt-5, claude-4.5, gemini-2.5), three programming languages (C, Java, Python), and four prompting strategies (Vanilla, Zero-shot, CoT, MA-CoT) on a 200-task primary dataset, with external validation on LLMSecEval. Using static analysis with expert validation, MA-CoT reduces total security findings from 92 to 39 (57.6%) on the primary dataset and from 73 to 4 (94.5%) on LLMSecEval. High-severity findings (Blocker + Critical) drop from 90 to 39 (56.7%) and from 45 to 2 (95.6%), respectively. Across both datasets, MA-CoT is the only strategy that consistently improves security reliability; Zero-shot and CoT are less reliable and may increase vulnerability, especially in C. We further introduce a strict layered attribution of vulnerability drivers (language-core vs. stack layers) and show that residual risk concentrates in hardening-oriented patterns (e.g., OS- and toolchain-dependent), motivating secure-by-construction primitives alongside prompting.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming software development, yet their use in security-critical contexts raises a key question: do models know when their generated code is insecure? This property, known as calibration, measures whether a model's confidence aligns with the true correctness of its outputs. We present the first large-scale empirical study of security calibration in LLM-generated code. We evaluate GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-2.0-Flash, and Qwen3-Coder-Next across multiple temperature settings on two complementary benchmarks: self-contained security tasks and multi-language repository-level contexts. Our results suggest that overconfidence is prevalent across the evaluated LLMs. Functional calibration is consistently worse than security calibration, suggesting that models estimate security outcomes more reliably than functional correctness, potentially because functional correctness depends on complex execution behavior. We also examine whether calibration-guided automated repair can help remediate vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code, finding only limited improvements while frequently introducing functional regressions. Moreover, we study different mitigation strategies for reducing False Trust, where models assign high confidence to vulnerable code. The results show that although architectural gating improves calibration on controlled benchmarks, calibration deteriorates in realistic repository-level settings, increasing the risk of high-confidence vulnerable outputs.