Source Code Vulnerability Remediation With Differential Pruning

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing technologies face challenges in objectively and accurately identifying and remediating vulnerabilities in source code, leading to inefficiencies in resource utilization for security monitoring and remediation.

Innovation Solution

A scalable source code vulnerability remediation apparatus utilizing machine learning models to analyze and generate remediated code snippets, with differential pruning to remove irrelevant changes, and validation to ensure effective vulnerability remediation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If machine learning models are used to analyze and generate remediated code snippets, then vulnerability remediation accuracy is improved, but computational resource utilization increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevulnerability remediation accuracyVSAvoidcomputational resource utilization
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the source code into code snippets and processes them individually through the machine learning model. This allows the model to focus computational resources on specific vulnerable portions rather than analyzing entire codebases, improving both accuracy and resource efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary identification of vulnerable code snippets using static analysis tools before applying the machine learning model. This pre-processing step filters and prioritizes code segments that are likely to contain vulnerabilities, reducing the computational burden on the ML model while maintaining high detection accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Productivity

If automated remediation is implemented using machine learning, then productivity is improved, but reliability of remediation quality may worsen

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveremediation speedVSAvoidremediation quality
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements a feedback mechanism where generated remediated code is validated against security rules and best practices. The validation results feed back into the machine learning model for continuous improvement, ensuring that automated remediation maintains high quality while improving speed over time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system adjusts parameters such as confidence thresholds and validation criteria dynamically based on the type of vulnerability and code context. This allows the automated remediation process to maintain high reliability by adapting its strictness and validation depth to each specific case.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Manufacturing precision

If differential pruning is applied to remove irrelevant changes, then manufacturing precision of remediated code is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecode change precisionVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system extracts and removes irrelevant changes from the remediated code using differential pruning. This focuses the final output on only the necessary security-related modifications, improving code precision while managing complexity by eliminating unnecessary elements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

4Reliability

If comprehensive validation is performed on remediated code snippets, then reliability of vulnerability remediation is improved, but loss of time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveremediation effectivenessVSAvoidvalidation time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs partial validation by applying different levels of checking based on vulnerability severity and code context. Critical vulnerabilities receive comprehensive validation while less severe issues undergo lighter checking, maintaining high reliability for important fixes while reducing overall validation time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentEP4211581B1Scalable source code vulnerability remediation
Publication Date: 2025.09.17 ACCENTURE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD
  • EP4211581B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4211581B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4211581B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

In some examples, scalable source code vulnerability remediation may include receiving source code that includes at least one vulnerability, and receiving remediated code that remediates the at least one vulnerability associated with the source code. At least one machine learning model may be trained to analyze a vulnerable code snippet of the source code. The vulnerable code snippet may correspond to the at least one vulnerability associated with the source code. The machine learning model may be trained to generate, for the vulnerable code snippet, a remediated code snippet to remediate the at least one vulnerability associated with the source code. The remediated code snippet may be validated based on an analysis of whether the remediated code snippet remediates the at least one vulnerability associated with the source code.