Backdoors in Code Summarizers: How Bad Is It?
Chenyu Wang, Zhou Yang, Yaniv Harel, David Lo

TL;DR
This study empirically investigates factors affecting backdoor attacks on Code LLMs, revealing that even extremely low poisoning rates can implant effective backdoors, especially with small batch sizes and specific trigger characteristics.
Contribution
It systematically explores how data, model, and inference factors influence backdoor effectiveness in Code LLMs, uncovering overlooked vulnerabilities and challenging prior assumptions.
Findings
Poisoning just 20 samples out of 454K can implant backdoors.
Low poisoning rates are more effective than previously believed.
Small batch sizes increase backdoor attack success.
Abstract
Code LLMs are increasingly employed in software development. However, studies have shown that they are vulnerable to backdoor attacks: when a trigger (a specific input pattern) appears in the input, the backdoor will be activated and cause the model to generate malicious outputs. Researchers have designed various triggers and demonstrated the feasibility of implanting backdoors by poisoning a fraction of the training data. Some basic conclusions have been made, such as backdoors becoming easier to implant when more training data is modified. However, existing research has not explored other factors influencing backdoor attacks on Code LLMs, such as training batch size, epoch number, and the broader design space for triggers, e.g., trigger length. To bridge this gap, we use code summarization as an example to perform an empirical study that systematically investigates the factors…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsDigital Rights Management and Security · Law, AI, and Intellectual Property · Digital and Cyber Forensics
