Vibe Coding's Security Risks (And a Practical Fix)
Everyone is talking about "Vibe Coding" - the idea (coined by Andrej Karpathy) that you can just "give in to the vibes" and let the AI handle the implementation. It sounds great. In practice? Studies show 20-73% vulnerability rates in AI-generated code.
I’ve spent the last month analyzing "Vibe Coding" workflows, backed by research like "Vibe Coding as a Reconfiguration of Intent Mediation" (Meske et al., 2025). The consensus is clear: we have shifted developer responsibility without filling the verification gaps.
The Security Risk Reality
Recent studies quantify exactly how risky "vibes" can be:
The Code Works, But It's Leaking. While 61% of AI-generated code passes functional tests, 80-90% of that same code fails security benchmarks.
| Study/Source | Vulnerability Rate | Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Veracode 2025 | 45% | High severity flaws across languages |
| Netlas review | 68-73% | Verified via manual analysis |
| SusVibes Bench | 80-90% | Passes function, fails security |
The Problem: When you prompt "Build me a login page with Supabase," the AI prioritizes getting it running. It frequently skips Row Level Security (RLS), proper hashing, or input sanitization.
Enter VibeShield: Policy Injection Middleware
I didn't want to abandon the speed of Cursor or Windsurf, but I needed safety. VibeShield is an MCP server that acts as a "Senior Engineer" guardrail. It detects your intent and silently injects the necessary security requirements before the LLM even sees your prompt.
How It Works
1. Interception
Sits as middleware between your IDE and the LLM, capturing raw prompts.
2. Intent Detection
Identifies sensitive contexts like AUTH, DB, or PAYMENTS.
3. Policy Resolution
Matches intent to security packs (e.g., "Supabase requires RLS").
4. Prompt Transformation
Appends <security_policy> to your prompt, forcing the LLM to adhere to safety specs.
In Action: The Invisible Guardrail
You don't change how you work. You just type. VibeShield intercepts the "vibes" and inserts the "specs."
You type:
"Build a user login flow using Supabase."
VibeShield silently transforms this to:
"Build a user login flow using Supabase.
[SECURITY_POLICY_INJECTED]:
- MUST implement Row Level Security (RLS) on all user tables.
- MUST use bcrypt or Argon2 for password hashing if handling auth manually.
- MUST validate email formats on server-side."
The LLM receives the second prompt. You get secure code on the first try.
The "Shift Left" Advantage
Traditional security tools scan your code after you write it - when it’s expensive and annoying to fix.
VibeShield moves security to the very beginning: The Prompt. By injecting guardrails before the first line of code is generated, we close the gap between "functional" and "secure" without slowing down your flow.
Stronger Prompts
Injects missing policies to reduce security omissions by ~50%.
Zero Friction
No new workflows. Just prompt, and VibeShield handles the specs.
Ready to secure your vibes?
Authenticate and install the VibeShield MCP server to get started.
References
- Meske et al. (2025). Vibe Coding as a Reconfiguration of Intent Mediation. arXiv:2507.21928
- Veracode. (2025). AI Code Security Report. veracode.com
- SusVibes Benchmark. (2025). Is Vibe Coding Safe? arXiv
- Netlas. (2025). Top Vibe-Coding Security Risks. netlas.io
- Security Vulnerabilities in AI-Generated Code. arXiv:2510.26103