An Empirical Study of Automatic Program Repair Techniques for Injection Vulnerabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injection vulnerabilities are among the most serious and dangerous security defects, as they can be exploited by attackers to inject malicious inputs and carry out cybercrimes. Timely fixing of injection vulnerabilities is crucial. However, manual repairs of injection vulnerabilities often require specialized knowledge and are prone to errors, posing a challenge and a heavy burden on developers. In recent years, Automated Program Repair (APR) techniques have shown promising momentum in automatically fixing general defects. Yet, there has been no research on how APR techniques perform in repairing injection vulnerabilities. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct an empirical study. We first construct a benchmark for injection vulnerability repair and evaluate several representative state-of-the-art APR approaches on this benchmark. The results show that existing APR tools do not adequately support the repair of injection vulnerabilities. To investigate the underlying reasons, we compare the characteristics of patches for injection vulnerabilities and general defects, and explore whether the plastic surgery hypothesis widely used in APR still holds for injection vulnerabilities. The results reveal that fixing injection vulnerabilities is more complex than fixing general defects due to significant differences in the characteristics of their patches. Additionally, the support for the plastic surgery hypothesis is much lower in the context of injection vulnerability repair. We also analyzed developers' intentions when fixing injection vulnerabilities. Finally, we summarize the implications and point out potential research directions for injection vulnerability repair.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".