CRCLLGPLJul 5, 2020

You Autocomplete Me: Poisoning Vulnerabilities in Neural Code Completion

arXiv:2007.02220v3208 citationsHas Code
AI Analysis

This reveals a security risk for developers using AI-powered code completion tools, highlighting vulnerabilities that could lead to insecure software.

The paper demonstrates that neural code autocompleters are vulnerable to poisoning attacks, where attackers can manipulate suggestions to promote insecure coding practices, such as suggesting ECB mode for AES encryption, with targeted attacks showing higher efficacy for specific repos or developers.

Code autocompletion is an integral feature of modern code editors and IDEs. The latest generation of autocompleters uses neural language models, trained on public open-source code repositories, to suggest likely (not just statically feasible) completions given the current context. We demonstrate that neural code autocompleters are vulnerable to poisoning attacks. By adding a few specially-crafted files to the autocompleter's training corpus (data poisoning), or else by directly fine-tuning the autocompleter on these files (model poisoning), the attacker can influence its suggestions for attacker-chosen contexts. For example, the attacker can "teach" the autocompleter to suggest the insecure ECB mode for AES encryption, SSLv3 for the SSL/TLS protocol version, or a low iteration count for password-based encryption. Moreover, we show that these attacks can be targeted: an autocompleter poisoned by a targeted attack is much more likely to suggest the insecure completion for files from a specific repo or specific developer. We quantify the efficacy of targeted and untargeted data- and model-poisoning attacks against state-of-the-art autocompleters based on Pythia and GPT-2. We then evaluate existing defenses against poisoning attacks and show that they are largely ineffective.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes