As AI-generated code continues to be injected into all corners of the internet, concerns have risen about an expanding attack surface for malicious hackers to exploit.
Some have argued that the enhanced cybersecurity capabilities of large language models could serve as a check, finding and fixing vulnerabilities nearly as fast as they’re created.
But new research that tested the patching capabilities of two popular commercial models, OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.5 and Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8, found that generative AI is more likely to create an exploitable patch or introduce entirely new bugs than close off a vulnerability.
Researchers at 1Password tested the models ability to patch six “high-impact, high-complexity” CVEs, including the “Copy Fail” vulnerability, a kernel flaw that can give an attacker root access to Linux cloud environments. The overall success rate (or fully patching the vulnerability without introducing new problems), was less than a coin flip at 47%.
“Our research findings show that, in aggregate across a variety of scenarios, both Claude and ChatGPT had a low rate of successful patch generation, which we define as full remediation of all known exploit paths with no erroneous changes to application behavior,” wrote John Hoodlet, Axel Mierczuk and Spencer Michaels.
“The models often addressed only a subset of vulnerable code paths, added fragile guard code that satisfied tests while failing to address the vulnerability’s root cause, and sometimes introduced subtle changes in the application’s behavior while patching the immediate vulnerability,” the authors continued.
The research suggests that largely autonomous vulnerability-discovery and patching may not yet be effective in fixing the explosion of vulnerable code that is being created in the AI era.
Other private sector research has pointed to a similar problem. A report this year from Veracode found that while LLMs have made “enormous strides” in crafting workable code, “security is a different story.” Testing across a range of frontier models found the average security “pass rate” for AI generated code is around 56%. Newer models like GPT 5.5 push closer to 70%, while more than half sit between 50-53%.
Veracode tested 100 different models and while there was variability, in general a small number of models were showing progress on security patching while the rest have experienced “stagnation.” Similar to the 1Password research, in 44% of Veracode tests the models introduced a detectable OWASP Top 10 vulnerability into the codebase.
An important caveat: neither report tested newer models, like Anthropic’s Mythos or OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol, that frontier companies tout as having significantly higher cybersecurity capabilities.
Those advanced models can identify and fix vulnerable code. Anthropic and OpenAI are distributing them to key industries through Project Glasswing and Daybreak before foreign or open-source alternatives can compete.
Tim Jarret, vice president of product at Veracode, told CyberScoop that AI tools are still subject to a range of limitations that can make them unreliable for cybersecurity patching without knowledgeable humans in the loop.
While some vulnerabilities – like SQL injections – can be easily patched through automation, other bugs like cross-site scripting, can be exploitable in several different ways and require either a human touch, additional context or both to fully close off. Additionally, models can slowly lose context from prior sessions over time, affecting their ability to complete tasks correctly and raising the possibility they’ll hallucinate to fill in the missing gaps.
“I think we would say, at this point, that Iits premature to treat those as anything other than another code change to the code base that needs to be reviewed and accepted by the team, as opposed to letting the agent merge the code freely,” said Jarrett.
However, he acknowledged that may not be possible in a world where AI agents are generating exponentially more code for human defenders to review. Some kind of automated code review will be necessary – preferably not by the same automation tool that produced the code. The ultimate goal is the same as it has always been in security: “trust but verify.”
“Ninety percent of the time, the human check might just be ‘did the cross check look good?’ Do we have a thumbs up?’” Jarrett said. “In those cases where there’s still something wrong, that’s where you focus your attention a little bit more.”
