Checkmarx 调查:70% 开发者认为 AI 生成代码漏洞更多,30% 仍将其带入生产环境
Devs know AI code is riddled with holes, but ship it anyway
Checkmarx 对 2350 名全球开发者、CISO 和 AppSec 管理者的调查显示,70% 的开发者认为 AI 生成代码存在明显更多漏洞,30% 明知有漏洞仍将其部署到生产环境。报告称 AI 生成代码约占生产代码的 49%,较去年的 54% 略有下降;93% 的受访者报告曾因应用漏洞遭遇一次或多次安全事件,低于去年的 98%。报告指出,AI 代码占比 81-100% 的组织部署漏洞代码的比例是占比 1-20% 组织的 3.4 倍。
正文
当前显示原文,中文全文译文尚未就绪。
Research by AppSec biz Checkmarx finds that 70 percent of developers believe AI-generated code has more vulnerabilities, and 30 percent knowingly ship vulnerable code into production.
The report is based on responses from 2,350 global developers, CISOs, and AppSec managers, and follows similar annual surveys since 2023. The number of respondents is 54 percent higher this year than last, and the increased sample size may account for a somewhat surprising statistic: the reported proportion of AI-generated production code has slightly declined, from 54 percent to 49 percent, though this is still a high figure.
Production applications are also built on an open source foundation, according to the report, accounting for 59 percent of the code. These are self-reported estimates, but a lot of open source code is buried in node_modules or other library locations and it is not always secure, whether because of hard-pressed maintainers struggling to keep up with AI-discovered vulnerabilities, or malicious packages smuggled into popular package repositories such as npm and PyPI.
The consequence is that software development is riskier than ever, with issues extending beyond vulnerable code to credential-stealing malware, yet the Checkmarx survey appears to show resignation, with 93 percent of respondents reporting one or more security breaches as a result of vulnerable applications – though last year the figure was 98 percent. Reasons given include pressure to deploy quickly, vulnerabilities being too difficult to fix, and reliance on other controls to pick up the pieces.
"Risk is normalized," says Checkmarx in its report.
The security of AI-generated code is a hot topic, particularly since, among these respondents, it accounts for around 50 percent of what is written. 70 percent report "significantly more vulnerabilities with AI-generated code," suggesting that AI is even worse than humans when it comes to overlooking security issues.
It is a complex situation. AI is trained on existing code, primarily public code, which has its share of vulnerabilities that may then be replicated. The AI wave has also delivered new tools for analyzing and remediating vulnerabilities.
A study last year by computer scientists from the University of Central Florida and Birzeit University in Palestine looked at how code security varied between different programming languages (Java, Python, C, and C++) and LLMs, and which vulnerabilities are most prevalent. The findings showed significant variations, with C code tending to have the most security issues, and Python the fewest, though the researchers acknowledge that LLMs are evolving rapidly and that the research is a "time-stamped view." One of the issues is that LLMs "underutilize modern language and compiler features, often favoring outdated practices over more secure alternatives." The likely reason is the prevalence of such practices in the training data.
A key question is whether developers can eliminate vulnerabilities using tooling, including old-style static analysis and newer AI-driven options. According to Checkmarx, they could but often do not.
"The tools do the work, but organizations lack in translating this into process," the company reports. As Veracode has also reported, AI assistance is driving up the pace of development and security practices cannot keep up.
The Checkmarx researchers state: "AI code volume correlates directly with vulnerable code deployment, which correlates directly with breach frequency." Specifically, "organizations where 81-100 percent of code is AI-generated ship vulnerable code at 3.4x the rate of those at 1-20 percent adoption" – a high price to pay for accelerated development.
When you just need to build a tiny desktop app: TinyJS
October 13, 2026
Valen creator drives 'Golden Spike' to connect new languages with Rust
September 26, 2026
Microsoft agentically ports Copilot runtime to Rust for $120K
September 19, 2026
Apple iPhone Duo makes developers think in folds
September 16, 2026
JavaScript installer pnpm recast in Rust because ECMAScript can't keep up
September 5, 2026
Kubernetes cleans house, bins legacy kube-dns, IPVS, and cgroup v1
August 27, 2026
How Cursor beat Git's scalability shortcomings
August 24, 2026
Go updates may delight diehard gophers but displease AI overlords
August 21, 2026
SvelteKit 3 puts heat on Next.js with radical approach to RPCs
August 20, 2026
Almost nobody pays attention to web standards anymore
August 18, 2026
ChainDrop worm crawls into npm supply chain, evades standard defenses
August 16, 2026
Node.js creator liberates Durable Objects from Cloudflare
August 13, 2026
AI titans to tidy agent frontier with plugin prescription
August 8, 2026
Platform Engineering 2.0: your platform was built for a different era. AI just exposed it
August 6, 2026
Next.js 16.3 aims to reduce dreaded FATAL ERROR messages
August 5, 2026
Dev who gave HashiCorp its name returns with a faster terminal multiplexer
August 1, 2026
How AI drove Shopify back to clean code
Turns out, agents just want the same things as humans: easily-readable code, explicit contracts, and helpful feedback
July 26, 2026
Zig creator calls Bun's Claude Rust rewrite 'unreviewed slop'
July 15, 2026
HTTP gets a QUERY method so complex searches can stop pretending to be POST
July 14, 2026
Speedier type checks in TypeScript 7.0 as first stable Go release ships
July 10, 2026
GitHub cuts short offer to burn repos on CD after mockery ensues
A purported jab of Sony's physical media phase-out blows up on GitHub itself
July 7, 2026
.NET's long term support is not long term enough, dev complains
June 30, 2026