A Systematic Literature Review on Automated Software Vulnerability Detection Using Machine Learning
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In recent years, numerous Machine Learning (ML) models, including Deep Learning (DL) and classic ML models, have been developed to detect software vulnerabilities. However, there is a notable lack of comprehensive and systematic surveys that summarize, classify, and analyze the applications of these ML models in software vulnerability detection. This absence may lead to critical research areas being overlooked or under-represented, resulting in a skewed understanding of the current state of the art in software vulnerability detection. To close this gap, we propose a comprehensive and systematic literature review that characterizes the different properties of ML-based software vulnerability detection systems using six major Research Questions (RQs). Using a custom web scraper, our systematic approach involves extracting a set of studies from four widely used online digital libraries: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. We manually analyzed the extracted studies to filter out irrelevant work unrelated to software vulnerability detection, followed by creating taxonomies and addressing RQs. Our analysis indicates a significant upward trend in applying ML techniques for software vulnerability detection over the past few years, with many studies published in recent years. Prominent conference venues include the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) conference, and the ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), whereas Information and Software Technology (IST), Computers & Security (C&S), and Journal of Systems and Software (JSS) are the leading journal venues. Our results reveal that 39.1% of the subject studies use hybrid sources, whereas 37.6% of the subject studies utilize benchmark data for software vulnerability detection. Code-based data are the most commonly used data type among subject studies, with source code being the predominant subtype. Graph-based and token-based input representations are the most popular techniques, accounting for 57.2% and 24.6% of the subject studies, respectively. Among the input embedding techniques, graph embedding and token vector embedding are the most frequently used techniques, accounting for 32.6% and 29.7% of the subject studies. Additionally, 88.4% of the subject studies use DL models, with recurrent neural networks and graph neural networks being the most popular subcategories, whereas only 7.2% use classic ML models. Among the vulnerability types covered by the subject studies, CWE-119, CWE-20, and CWE-190 are the most frequent ones. In terms of tools used for software vulnerability detection, Keras with TensorFlow backend and PyTorch libraries are the most frequently used model-building tools, accounting for 42 studies for each. In addition, Joern is the most popular tool used for code representation, accounting for 24 studies. Finally, we summarize the challenges and future directions in the context of software vulnerability detection, providing valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in the field.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle