A User-centered Security Evaluation of Copilot
Owura Asare, Meiyappan Nagappan, N. Asokan
Abstract
Code generation tools driven by artificial intelligence have recently become more popular due to advancements in deep learning and natural language processing that have increased their capabilities. The proliferation of these tools may be a double-edged sword because while they can increase developer productivity by making it easier to write code, research has shown that they can also generate insecure code. In this paper, we perform a user-centered evaluation GitHub's Copilot to better understand its strengths and weaknesses with respect to code security. We conduct a user study where participants solve programming problems (with and without Copilot assistance) that have potentially vulnerable solutions. The main goal of the user study is to determine how the use of Copilot affects participants' security performance. In our set of participants (n=25), we find that access to Copilot accompanies a more secure solution when tackling harder problems. For the easier problem, we observe no effect of Copilot access on the security of solutions. We also observe no disproportionate impact of Copilot use on particular kinds of vulnerabilities. Our results indicate that there are potential security benefits to using Copilot, but more research is warranted on the effects of the use of code generation tools on technically complex problems with security requirements. CCS CONCEPTS • Security and privacy → Software security engineering; • Computing methodologies → Natural language generation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 99da130e-f07c-428a-9e85-f2d072499045Cited by top-tier papers2
- “I need to learn better searching tactics for privacy policy laws.” Investigating Software Developers’ Behavior When Using Sources on Privacy IssuesStefan Albert Horstmann, Sandy Hong, Maziar Niazian, Cristiana Santos et al.ICSE 2026 · 1 citation
- DeepGuard: Secure Code Generation via Multi-Layer Semantic AggregationLi Huang, Zhongxin Liu, Yifan Wu, Tao Yin et al.ACL 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on4
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code ContributionsHammond Pearce, Baleegh Ahmad, Benjamin Tan, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt et al.S&P 2022 · 725 citations
- Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating ModelsShraddha Barke, Michael B. James, Nadia PolikarpovaOOPSLA 2023 · 408 citations
- Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code AssistantsGustavo Sandoval, Hammond Pearce, Teo Nys, Ramesh Karri et al.USENIX Security 2023
Related papers
- Measuring the Runtime Performance of C++ Code Written by Humans Using Github CopilotDaniel Erhabor, Sreeharsha Udayashankar, Meiyappan Nagappan, Samer Al-KiswanyICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?Neil Perry, Megha Srivastava, Deepak Kumar, Dan BonehCCS 2023 · 150 citations
- Poisoned ChatGPT Finds Work for Idle Hands: Exploring Developers' Coding Practices with Insecure Suggestions from Poisoned AI ModelsSanghak Oh, Kiho Lee, Seonhye Park, Doowon Kim et al.S&P 2024 · 42 citations
- Using AI Assistants in Software Development: A Qualitative Study on Security Practices and ConcernsJan H. Klemmer, Stefan Albert Horstmann, Nikhil Patnaik, Cordelia Ludden et al.CCS 2024 · 14 citations
- An Eye for AI: Eye-Tracking the Micro-Interruptions of GenAI Code SuggestionsTarek Alakmeh, Sarah D’Angelo, Thomas FritzICSE 2026 · 1 citation
