Microsoft's soon-to-be-released GitHub Copilot Enterprise option will give organizations an enterprise-grade subscription plan for its AI-powered code-completion tool, which helps developers write code faster.
The option will give administrators a single point of visibility and management over Copilot use in the enterprise and will include security and privacy features to protect enterprise code from potential threats and compromise.
The enterprise plan gives organizations that have a low appetite for risk one of the best options yet to harness the productivity benefits of an AI pair programmer such as Copilot while mitigating some of the perceived risks associated with the technology.
When using AI tools such as Copilot, organizations need to be cognizant of a number of security and legal risks — and protect against them. This includes AI-powered code auto-completion, code-generation, and code-optimization tools. Here are four important questions to ask.
[ Learn more in our report: The Buyer’s Guide to Software Supply Chain Security | See Webinar: Why you need to upgrade your AppSec tools for the new era ]
1. Do components of your code belong to someone else?
One of the biggest concerns associated with automatic code-generation and code-completion tools is the potential for copyright violations and licensing complications. Copilot and other similar AI-based tools often use public and private databases for training data. The black-box nature of these technologies means organizations have no visibility into whether the code snippets and partial code that these tools suggest might include use of copyrighted material and intellectual property.
Microsoft has acknowledged the concerns that some of its customers have expressed about the potential IP and copyright issues associated with the use of Copilot: "Microsoft is bullish on the benefits of AI, but, as with any powerful technology, we’re clear-eyed about the challenges and risks associated with it, including protecting creative works."
The company's versions of Copilot for enterprises explicitly blocks outputs that match public code as one measure to reduce copyright-related risks. To further ease some of these concerns, the company announced last September that it would offer legal protections from third-party copyright infringement claims to Copilot customers. Under Microsoft's Copilot Copyright Commitment provision, Microsoft will defend customers — and even pay for any adverse judgments or settlements — resulting from any lawsuit that a third-party might file against them over copyright infringement claims.
However, to be eligible for the protection, organizations need to ensure that they implement specific guardrails and content filters that Microsoft has built into Copilot when using the technology. The goal in integrating the filters and other mitigation technologies is to reduce the likelihood of Copilot returning infringing content, Microsoft said:
"These build on and complement our work to protect digital safety, security, and privacy, based on a broad range of guardrails such as classifiers, meta-prompts, content filtering, and operational monitoring and abuse detection."
FOSSA, the developers of the eponymously named software platform for managing open-source license compliance, also recommends that organizations scan their AI-generated code for potential copyrighted, licensed code and tag all AI-generated code. In addition, FOSSA recommends that organizations enable GitHub Copilot's optional duplicate code-detection feature to further reduce risk associated with license compliance issues.
John Bambenek, president at Bambenek Consulting, said organizations should be very concerned because “the AI made it” will likely not be a defense against a copyright claim.
"Organizations are making money with this code, which means there is a strict level of scrutiny on the organization against using copyrighted code even if they had no idea, it was copyrighted in the first place."
—John Bambenek
2. Is your AI tool introducing vulnerabilities?
Copilot can inadvertently suggest code snippets that contain security weaknesses that developers then introduce into their software projects without review. Past research has shown that GitHub Copilot and other AI-based code-completion and code-generation assistants such as AWS CodeWhisperer that are trained on open source code and libraries with known vulnerabilities in them can often reproduce output that contains these same vulnerabilities.
Eric Schwake, director of cybersecurity strategy at Salt Security, said that while AI tools including Copilot can help to dramatically decrease the time needed for software development, they can also introduce security concerns that need to be accounted for. He said that it's imperative that organizations that use tools such as Copilot do due diligence when utilizing code or code suggestions.
"Because of the black-box nature of these tools, organizations need strategies in place to ensure the AI is providing code that is both secure and compliant with their internal regulations."
—Eric Schwake
One new study from Snyk found that if an organization uses Copilot in a project with existing vulnerabilities, the AI-based tool will amplify those vulnerabilities through its suggestions. At the same time, when Copilot is used in a project without existing security issues, the code it generates is also mostly vulnerability-free.
An older, 2021 analysis of the security of GitHub Copilot's code contributions by researchers at New York University and the University of Calgary found that 40% of 1,689 programs that Copilot helped produce for the study contained vulnerabilities. The researchers found that while Copilot could significantly increase the productivity of software developers, it also heightened security risks.
"Put simply, when Copilot suggests code, it may inadvertently replicate existing security vulnerabilities and bad practices present in the neighbor files," Snyk said. "This can lead to insecure coding practices and open the door to a range of security vulnerabilities."
Mitigating these risks means having mechanisms in place to scan the output from AI code-prompting and code-generation tools for vulnerabilities and to have code-review policies that require approval of all auto-generated code before deployment.
While Copilot has evolved considerably since the 2021 study, researchers believe organizations still need to pair the tool with controls for comprehensive vetting. Matt Rose, field CISO at ReversingLabs, said that while traditional AppSec tools (AST) can test for vulnerabilities and tools such as software composition analysis (SCA) can help validate open-source licensing, what organizations need is a tool that can provide visibility into the entire software packages companies develop or use.
Rose wrote recently that complex binary analysis is the right tool for dealing with today's increasingly complex software.
"An evolution of application security (AppSec) is under way, and a key to it is complex binary analysis, which is like a final exam for your software package before release. Complex binary analysis allows your team to review the software in final form so that you can trust all of the software your organization produces and consumes."
—Matt Rose
3. Are your secrets ending up in the training data?
AI writing assistants, code completion tools and chatbots have a tendency to store large chunks of training data and spew out the data verbatim with the appropriate prompts. A study that researchers at Google's DeepMind AI research lab conducted in collaboration with peers at Cornell University, UC Berkeley, and three other universities showed how an adversary could extract training data from ChatGPT simply by prompting it to incessantly repeat specific words such as "poem," "make," "send," and "company."
This can become a significant issue with AI-based coding assistants because the training data can sometimes contain copyrighted code and hard-coded secrets such as access tokens, OAuth IDs, and API keys. Though such data is supposed to remain private, it can often end up in codebases on public repositories such as GitHub, which tools such as Copilot then use as training data. In 2022, developers inadvertently committed codebases to GitHub that in total contained over 3 million hard-coded secrets.
Just as with ChatGPT, research has shown that attackers can extract these secrets in AI-based code assistants using the appropriate prompts. To illustrate the extent of the problem, researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Sun Yat-sen University in China ran a tool they developed called Hard-coded Credential Revealer against Copilot and CodeWhisperer and extracted 2,702 hard-coded credentials from Copilot and 129 secrets from CodeWhisperer.
Salt Security's Schwake said awareness was key.
"As with most things, when it comes to security, it’s important that there are awareness programs in place for DevOps that explain the risks associated with Copilot and how it could potentially interact with sensitive data. Ensuring secure coding practices across the organization is especially important to limit the risk of data loss."
—Eric Schwake
FOSSA also recommends that organizations ensure they have opted out of having Copilot using any prompts or code snippets of theirs for training purposes.
Philip George, executive technical assistant at Merlin Cyber, said sound secrets hygiene should be exercised when curating training data for Copilot. The goal should be to ensure no hardcoded secrets existing within the training content or in the code repositories, he said.
"Consider establishing a cryptographic bill of materials to track the proliferation of secrets across a given codebase and incorporate centralized credential management and Just-in-time (JIT) access for CI/CD development."
—Philip George
There are mechanisms, usually around pattern matching, to prevent secrets from getting into public repositories adds Bambenek. "But [often] these mechanisms are ineffectively deployed, if they are deployed at all."
4. Can someone manipulate your code completion tool?
One risk that organizations need to consider and protect against is the potential for adversaries to try and "poison" AI systems or to deliberately confuse them into malfunctioning.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) earlier this year highlighted four attack classes that threat actors can use to trigger these outcomes: evasion attacks or attempts to alter an input to affect how the system responds to it; poisoning attacks involving the introduction of corrupt data into the training set; privacy attacks for extracting training data for malicious purposes; and abuse attacks involving the use of incorrect and false information into a source web page or document.
NIST noted in its blog post:
“Most of these attacks are fairly easy to mount and require minimum knowledge of the AI system and limited adversarial capabilities. Poisoning attacks, for example, can be mounted by controlling a few dozen training samples, which would be a very small percentage of the entire training set.”
Such attacks can happen in the context of AI-powered code assistants such as GitHub Copilot and CodeWhisperer, said Merlin Cyber's George. For starters, organizations should adopt regular static analysis scans of their codebase in conjunction with strict access control requirements for data repositories to mitigate this risk, he said.
DevOps teams that plan on using Copilot or similar tools should also consider adopting access control mechanisms to enforce the compartmentalization of datasets used for training large language models in the environment, George said. He recommended that organizations consider models such as the Bell LaPadula model — often used by the military and government — to protect sensitive information when using AI-based assistants in the development environment.
"The focus is to ensure both the confidentiality and integrity of data sources to maintain trust for AI pair/code-generation tools."
—Philip George
AI giveth, and AI taketh away
AI tools such as Copilot can help to dramatically increase the time needed for app development. But they can also introduce security concerns that need to be accounted for, Schwake said.
It’s important for organizations to set in place guardrails around the use of such technologies, the kind of data they have access to, and how, or whether, such data can be shared.
"There is still uncertainty on whether AI-generated code can be copyrighted, so this needs to be considered if your organization utilizes code that Copilot has built."
—Eric Schwake
