Alena Naiakshina

Past research showed that software developers often require explicit instructions to implement security measures. With the rapid rise of AI assistant tools such as ChatGPT, it remains unclear whether AI assistance supports or undermines secure practices, whether explicit security instructions are still essential, and how developers behave without guidance. To investigate these research questions, we conducted a qualitative lab study with 21 computer science students and a quantitative online study with 80 freelance developers. We focused on secure password storage and asked participants to implement registration logic under four conditions: without instructions, with AI assistance, with security instructions, or with both AI assistance and security instructions. Our study reveals a clear behavioral shift: In our task, many participants relied on AI-assisted code generation for security-related tasks, often prioritizing convenience over security. However, explicit security-focused instructions can redirect this behavior toward secure outcomes, demonstrating that AI tools alone are insufficient without targeted guidance.

Since the introduction of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), software developers increasingly have to make privacy-related decisions during system design and implementation. However, past research showed that they often lack legal expertise and struggle with privacy-compliant development. To shed light on how effective current information sources are in supporting them with privacy-sensitive implementation, we conducted a qualitative study with 30 developers. Participants were presented with a privacy-sensitive scenario and asked to identify privacy issues and suggest measures using their knowledge, online resources, and an AI assistant. We observed developers’ decision-making in think-aloud sessions and discussed it in follow-up interviews. We found that participants struggled with all three sources: personal knowledge was insufficient, web content was often too complex, and while AI assistants provided clear and user-tailored responses, they lacked contextual relevance and failed to identify scenario-specific issues. Our study highlights major shortcomings in existing support for privacy-related development tasks. Based on our findings, we discuss the need for more accessible, understandable, and actionable privacy resources for developers.

Security must be considered in almost every software system. Unfortunately, selecting and implementing security features remains a challenge due to the wide variety of security threats and possible countermeasures. While security standards are intended to help developers, they are usually too abstract and vague to help implementing security features, or they merely help configuring such. A resource that describes security features at an abstraction level that lies between high-level (i.e., rather too general) and low-level (i.e., rather too specific) security standards could facilitate secure systems development. This resource should support the selection of appropriate security features to achieve high-level security goals, allow easy retrieval of relevant low-level details, and provide pointers to suitable ways to realize the security features. To realize security features, developers typically use external security libraries or frameworks, to minimize implementation mistakes. Even when using libraries, developers still make mistakes when writing code to integrate them, often resulting in security vulnerabilities. When security incidents occur or the system needs to be audited or maintained, it is essential to know what security features have been implemented and, more importantly, where they are located. This task, commonly referred to as feature location, is often tedious and error-prone. While dedicated feature location techniques exist, they require significant manual effort or adherence to strict development processes, preventing their use. Therefore, we have to support long-term tracking of implemented security features. We present a study of security features presented in the literature and their coverage in popular security frameworks. We contribute (1) a taxonomy of 68 functional implementation-level security features including a mapping to widely used security standards, (2) an examination of 21 popular security frameworks concerning which of these security features they provide, and (3) a discussion on the representation of security features in source code. Our taxonomy aims to aid developers in selecting appropriate security features and security frameworks, as well as relating them to security standards when they need to choose and implement security features for a software system.

Security must be considered in almost every software system. Unfortunately, selecting and implementing security features remains challenging due to the variety of security threats and possible countermeasures. While security standards are intended to help developers, they are usually too abstract and vague to help implement security features, or they merely help configure such. A resource that describes security features at an abstraction level between high-level (i.e., rather too general) and low-level (i.e., rather too specific) security standards could facilitate secure systems development. To realize security features, developers typically use external security frameworks, to minimize implementation mistakes. Even then, developers still make mistakes, often resulting in security vulnerabilities. When security incidents occur or the system needs to be audited or maintained, it is essential to know the implemented security features and, more importantly, where they are located. This task, commonly referred to as feature location, is often tedious and error-prone. Therefore, we have to support long-term tracking of implemented security features. We present a study of security features in the literature and their coverage in popular security frameworks. We contribute (1) a taxonomy of 68 functional implementation-level security features including a mapping to widely used security standards, (2) an examination of 21 popular security frameworks concerning which of these security features they provide, and (3) a discussion on the representation of security features in source code. Our taxonomy aims to aid developers in selecting appropriate security features and frameworks and relating them to security standards when they need to choose and implement security features for a software system.

Following the recent release of AI assistants, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, the software industry quickly utilized these tools for software development tasks, e.g., generating code or consulting AI for advice. While recent research has demonstrated that AI-generated code can contain security issues, how software professionals balance AI assistant usage and security remains unclear. This paper investigates how software professionals use AI assistants in secure software development, what security implications and considerations arise, and what impact they foresee on security in software development. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with software professionals, including software engineers, team leads, and security testers. We also reviewed 190 relevant Reddit posts and comments to gain insights into the current discourse surrounding AI assistants for software development. Our analysis of the interviews and Reddit posts finds that, despite many security and quality concerns, participants widely use AI assistants for security-critical tasks, e.g., code generation, threat modeling, and vulnerability detection. Participants' overall mistrust leads to checking AI suggestions in similar ways to human code. However, they expect improvements and, therefore, a heavier use of AI for security tasks in the future. We conclude with recommendations for software professionals to critically check AI suggestions, for AI creators to improve suggestion security and capabilities for ethical security tasks, and for academic researchers to consider general-purpose AI in software development.