Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 898

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

VulDeePecker: A Deep Learning-Based System for Vulnerability Detection

Open access
Li, Zhen, Zou, Deqing, Xu, Shouhuai, Ou, Xinyu, Jin, Hai, Wang, Sujuan, Deng, Zhijun, Zhong, Yuyi·2018·Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium

Abstract

The automatic detection of software vulnerabilities is an important research problem.However, existing solutions to this problem rely on human experts to define features and often miss many vulnerabilities (i.e., incurring high false negative rate).In this paper, we initiate the study of using deep learning-based vulnerability detection to relieve human experts from the tedious and subjective task of manually defining features.Since deep learning is motivated to deal with problems that are very different from the problem of vulnerability detection, we need some guiding principles for applying deep learning to vulnerability detection.In particular, we need to find representations of software programs that are suitable for deep learning.For this purpose, we propose using code gadgets to represent programs and then transform them into vectors, where a code gadget is a number of (not necessarily consecutive) lines of code that are semantically related to each other.This leads to the design and implementation of a deep learning-based vulnerability detection system, called Vulnerability Deep Pecker (VulDeePecker).In order to evaluate VulDeePecker, we present the first vulnerability dataset for deep learning approaches.Experimental results show that VulDeePecker can achieve much fewer false negatives (with reasonable false positives) than other approaches.We further apply VulDeePecker to 3 software products (namely Xen, Seamonkey, and Libav) and detect 4 vulnerabilities, which are not reported in the National Vulnerability Database but were "silently" patched by the vendors when releasing later versions of these products; in contrast, these vulnerabilities are almost entirely missed by the other vulnerability detection systems we experimented with.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14722/ndss.2018.23158

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 898

Metadata

Authors
Li, Z., Zou, D., Xu, S., Ou, X., Jin, H., Wang, S., Deng, Z., & Zhong, Y.
Venue
Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium
Published
2018
OpenAlex
W2781491433
Cited by
898
References
5
FWCI
28.27
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: VulDeePecker: A Deep Learning-Based System for Vulnerability Detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14722/ndss.2018.23158
The paper
Li, Z., Zou, D., Xu, S., Ou, X., Jin, H., Wang, S., Deng, Z., & Zhong, Y. (2018). VulDeePecker: A Deep Learning-Based System for Vulnerability Detection. Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2018.23158

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.