An Empirical Study on Using Large Language Models to Analyze Software Supply Chain Security Failures
Authors: Tanmay Singla, Dharun Anandayuvaraj, Kelechi G. Kalu, Taylor R. Schorlemmer, James C. Davis
AI-generated Key Points
- Breaches in the software supply chain have become more detrimental
- Recent high-profile cyber attacks (SolarWinds, ShadowHammer) highlight the need for stronger cybersecurity measures
- Traditional methods of analyzing failures are time-consuming and costly
- Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, specifically Large Language Models (LLMs), can assist in analyzing software supply chain breaches
- Empirical study assessed LLMs' effectiveness in analyzing historical failures
- GPT 3.5s achieved an average accuracy rate of 68% in categorizing dimensions, Bard achieved 58%
- LLMs can effectively characterize failures with sufficient detail available
- LLMs cannot replace human analysts entirely
- NLP techniques like LLMs can automate analysis process and enhance cybersecurity efforts
- Further research should focus on improving LLM performance and expanding scope
Abstract: As we increasingly depend on software systems, the consequences of breaches in the software supply chain become more severe. High-profile cyber attacks like those on SolarWinds and ShadowHammer have resulted in significant financial and data losses, underlining the need for stronger cybersecurity. One way to prevent future breaches is by studying past failures. However, traditional methods of analyzing these failures require manually reading and summarizing reports about them. Automated support could reduce costs and allow analysis of more failures. Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques such as Large Language Models (LLMs) could be leveraged to assist the analysis of failures. In this study, we assessed the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to analyze historical software supply chain breaches. We used LLMs to replicate the manual analysis of 69 software supply chain security failures performed by members of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF). We developed prompts for LLMs to categorize these by four dimensions: type of compromise, intent, nature, and impact. GPT 3.5s categorizations had an average accuracy of 68% and Bard had an accuracy of 58% over these dimensions. We report that LLMs effectively characterize software supply chain failures when the source articles are detailed enough for consensus among manual analysts, but cannot yet replace human analysts. Future work can improve LLM performance in this context, and study a broader range of articles and failures.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.