Is Vibe Coding Secure? Conflicting Insights from Two Key Studies
This LinkedIn article examines two recent, credible studies that appear to contradict each other on the security of AI-generated or "vibe coded" applications. The first, SusVibes, found that while AI models like Claude 4 Sonnet achieved 61% functional correctness on complex, real-world coding tasks, over 80% of that working code contained serious security vulnerabilities (e.g., code injection, logic flaws), with only 10.5% of solutions being fully secure. The second study by Invicti, which generated over 20,000 simple web apps, found a more optimistic picture: modern LLMs have dramatically improved at avoiding basic vulnerabilities like SQL injection and XSS but systematically introduced new, predictable risks by replicating hardcoded secrets (like "supersecretkey"), common credentials, and standard endpoints from their training data. The article reconciles these findings by highlighting their different scopes: Invicti's study shows AI is better at basic security for simple, standalone features, while SusVibes demonstrates that AI still fails catastrophically at the complex, multi-file security logic required for real-world applications. The core takeaway is that vibe coding is not inherently safe or unsafe; its security outcome depends entirely on the complexity of the task and the necessity of expert human review, with both studies underscoring that AI cannot be trusted to write secure code without oversight.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vibe-coding-safe-tale-two-research-studies-tony-uv-kqbie
Comments
Post a Comment