Large language models have gained significant popularity because of their ability to generate human-like text and potential applications in various fields, such as Software Engineering. Large language models for code are commonly trained on large unsanitised corpora of source code scraped from the internet. The content of these datasets is memorised and can be extracted by attackers with data extraction attacks. In this work, we explore memorisation in large language models for code and compare the rate of memorisation with large language models trained on natural language. We adopt an existing benchmark for natural language and construct a benchmark for code by identifying samples that are vulnerable to attack. We run both benchmarks against a variety of models, and perform a data extraction attack. We find that large language models for code are vulnerable to data extraction attacks, like their natural language counterparts. From the training data that was identified to be potentially extractable we were able to extract 47% from a CodeGen-Mono-16B code completion model. We also observe that models memorise more, as their parameter count grows, and that their pre-training data are also vulnerable to attack. We also find that data carriers are memorised at a higher rate than regular code or documentation and that different model architectures memorise different samples. Data leakage has severe outcomes, so we urge the research community to further investigate the extent of this phenomenon using a wider range of models and extraction techniques in order to build safeguards to mitigate this issue.

An important question today is whether a given text was used to train a large language model (LLM). A \emph{completion} test is often employed: check if the LLM completes a sufficiently complex text. This, however, requires a ground-truth definition of membership; most commonly, it is defined as a member based on the $n$-gram overlap between the target text and any text in the dataset. In this work, we demonstrate that this $n$-gram based membership definition can be effectively gamed. We study scenarios where sequences are \emph{non-members} for a given $n$ and we find that completion tests still succeed. We find many natural cases of this phenomenon by retraining LLMs from scratch after removing all training samples that were completed; these cases include exact duplicates, near-duplicates, and even short overlaps. They showcase that it is difficult to find a single viable choice of $n$ for membership definitions. Using these insights, we design adversarial datasets that can cause a given target sequence to be completed without containing it, for any reasonable choice of $n$. Our findings highlight the inadequacy of $n$-gram membership, suggesting membership definitions fail to account for auxiliary information available to the training algorithm.

Membership Inference attacks (MIAs) aim to predict whether a data sample was present in the training data of a machine learning model or not, and are widely used for assessing the privacy risks of language models. Most existing attacks rely on the observation that models tend to assign higher probabilities to their training samples than non-training points. However, simple thresholding of the model score in isolation tends to lead to high false-positive rates as it does not account for the intrinsic complexity of a sample. Recent work has demonstrated that reference-based attacks which compare model scores to those obtained from a reference model trained on similar data can substantially improve the performance of MIAs. However, in order to train reference models, attacks of this kind make the strong and arguably unrealistic assumption that an adversary has access to samples closely resembling the original training data. Therefore, we investigate their performance in more realistic scenarios and find that they are highly fragile in relation to the data distribution used to train reference models. To investigate whether this fragility provides a layer of safety, we propose and evaluate neighbourhood attacks, which compare model scores for a given sample to scores of synthetically generated neighbour texts and therefore eliminate the need for access to the training data distribution. We show that, in addition to being competitive with reference-based attacks that have perfect knowledge about the training data distribution, our attack clearly outperforms existing reference-free attacks as well as reference-based attacks with imperfect knowledge, which demonstrates the need for a reevaluation of the threat model of adversarial attacks.

Code Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating, understanding, and manipulating programming code. However, their training process inadvertently leads to the memorization of sensitive information, posing severe privacy risks. Existing studies on memorization in LLMs primarily rely on prompt engineering techniques, which suffer from limitations such as widespread hallucination and inefficient extraction of the target sensitive information. In this paper, we present a novel approach to characterize real and fake secrets generated by Code LLMs based on token probabilities. We identify four key characteristics that differentiate genuine secrets from hallucinated ones, providing insights into distinguishing real and fake secrets. To overcome the limitations of existing works, we propose DESEC, a two-stage method that leverages token-level features derived from the identified characteristics to guide the token decoding process. DESEC consists of constructing an offline token scoring model using a proxy Code LLM and employing the scoring model to guide the decoding process by reassigning token likelihoods. Through extensive experiments on four state-of-the-art Code LLMs using a diverse dataset, we demonstrate the superior performance of DESEC in achieving a higher plausible rate and extracting more real secrets compared to existing baselines. Our findings highlight the effectiveness of our token-level approach in enabling an extensive assessment of the privacy leakage risks associated with Code LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential for coding, yet fine-tuning (FT) with curated data is essential for niche languages like Verilog. Using proprietary intellectual property (IP) for FT presents a serious risk, as FT data can be leaked through LLM inference. This leads to a critical dilemma for design houses: seeking to build externally accessible LLMs offering competitive Verilog coding, how can they leverage in-house IP to enhance FT utility while ensuring IP protection? For the first time in the literature, we study this dilemma. Using LLaMA 3.1-8B, we conduct in-house FT on a baseline Verilog dataset (RTLCoder) supplemented with our own in-house IP, which is validated through multiple tape-outs. To rigorously assess IP leakage, we quantify structural similarity (AST/Dolos) and functional equivalence (Synopsys Formality) between generated codes and our in-house IP. We show that our IP can indeed be leaked, confirming the threat. As defense, we evaluate logic locking of Verilog codes (ASSURE). This offers some level of protection, yet reduces the IP's utility for FT and degrades the LLM's performance. Our study shows the need for novel strategies that are both effective and minimally disruptive to FT, an essential effort for enabling design houses to fully utilize their proprietary IP toward LLM-driven Verilog coding.