Beyond Static Tools: Evaluating Large Language Models for Cryptographic Misuse Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software development is rapidly growing, with developers increasingly relying on these models for coding assistance, including security-critical tasks. Our work presents a comprehensive comparison between traditional static analysis tools for cryptographic API misuse detection-CryptoGuard, CogniCrypt, and Snyk Code-and the LLMs-GPT and Gemini. Using benchmark datasets (OWASP, CryptoAPI, and MASC), we evaluate the effectiveness of each tool in identifying cryptographic misuses. Our findings show that GPT 4-o-mini surpasses current state-of-the-art static analysis tools on the CryptoAPI and MASC datasets, though it lags on the OWASP dataset. Additionally, we assess the quality of LLM responses to determine which models provide actionable and accurate advice, giving developers insights into their practical utility for secure coding. This study highlights the comparative strengths and limitations of static analysis versus LLM-driven approaches, offering valuable insights into the evolving role of AI in advancing software security practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".