"Anthropic introduced automated security reviews in Claude Code last month, promising to ensure that "no code reaches production without a baseline security review." The AI-driven review checks for common vulnerability patterns including authentication and authorization flaws, insecure data handling, dependency vulnerabilities, and SQL injection. Checkmarx reported that the /security-review command in Claude Code was successful in finding simple vulnerabilities such as XSS (cross-site scripting) and even an authorization bypass issue that many static analysis tools might miss."
"A more difficult area is when code is crafted to mislead AI inspection. The researchers did this with a function called "sanitize," complete with a comment describing how it looked for unsafe or invalid input, which actually ran an obviously unsafe process. This passed the Claude Code security review, which declared "security impact: none." Another problem is that the Claude Code security review generates and executes its own test cases."
Anthropic added automated security reviews to Claude Code to provide a baseline check before code reaches production, scanning for authentication and authorization flaws, insecure data handling, dependency vulnerabilities, and SQL injection. Checkmarx found the /security-review command detected simple issues like XSS and an authorization bypass that static tools might miss, but it failed to flag a remote code execution vulnerability in pandas and marked it as a false positive. Researchers demonstrated that crafted code and misleading comments can deceive the AI review, and that executing generated test cases can introduce new risks such as running harmful queries or activating malicious third-party code. Checkmarx acknowledges AI reviews have value but urges developers to heed product warnings and remain cautious.
Read at Theregister
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]