<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2204.04741/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2204.04741/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code? — mentioned by calibas</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37774197</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2204.04741:37774197</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2023 02:18:43 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The results show that (1) 35.8% of Copilot generated code snippets contain CWEs What percent of non-Copilot generated public GitHub repos contain CWEs? Edit: According to this study, Copilot generates C/C++ code with vulnerabilities, but at a lower rate than your average human coder: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.04741.pdf&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2204.04741/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
