Last Secure Code Benchmark: Is the Code You Vibe Secure?
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
AI coding agents now write much of the code that ships, yet whether that code is secure remains unclear. We introduce the Last Secure Code Benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation of secure code generation by coding agents. Built from 150 real vulnerabilities, its 450 tasks span seven widely used languages (Java, C, C++, JavaScript, Python, PHP, and Go), 24 CWEs including 21 of the 2025 CWE Top 25 and 8 of the Top 10 KEV weaknesses, more than any benchmark we compare with, and three vibe-coding scenarios: filling in a function, writing a file, and building a repository's source tree from scratch. Every task asks only for functionality, through a specification that never mentions security, and hidden functional and security tests grade the result. Across six frontier agents, 73.6% to 91.3% of tasks pass functionally, yet even the strongest, Claude Fable 5, produces code that is both functional and secure for only 25.1% of tasks, and the others for 16.4% to 24.7%. The best model only passes 12% of the vulnerability scenarios across all vibe coding setting, posing strong concern on the security of the code written by vibe coding.
Results and benchmarks
AI coding agents now write much of the code that ships, yet whether that code is secure remains unclear.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX