Automatic Testing of Program Security Vulnerabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulnerabilities in applications and their widespread exploitation through successful attacks are common these days. Testing applications for preventing vulnerabilities is an important step to address this issue. In recent years, a number of security testing approaches have been proposed. However, there is no comparative study of these work that might help security practitioners select an appropriate approach for their needs. Moreover, there is no comparison with respect to automation capabilities of these approaches. In this work, we identify seven criteria to analyze program security testing work. These are vulnerability coverage, source of test cases, test generation method, level of testing, granularity of test cases, testing automation, and target applications. We compare and contrast prominent security testing approaches available in the literature based on these criteria. In particular, we focus on work that address four most common but dangerous vulnerabilities namely buffer overflow, SQL injection, format string bug, and cross site scripting. Moreover, we investigate automation features available in these work across a security testing process. We believe that our findings will provide practical information for security practitioners in choosing the most appropriate tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it