MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111937777 · doi:10.1109/isa.2008.104

Catalog of Metrics for Assessing Security Risks of Software throughout the Software Development Life Cycle

2008· article· en· W2111937777 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Sultan, Abdeslam En-Nouaary, Abdelwahab Hamou‐Lhadj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystems development life cycleSoftware security assuranceComputer scienceSoftware development processSoftware developmentSoftware peer reviewSoftware engineeringSoftware metricSecurity testingSecurity engineeringSecurity bugComputer securitySecurity information and event managementRisk analysis (engineering)Software constructionSoftwareSecurity serviceInformation securityCloud computing securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a new set of metrics for building secure software systems. The proposed metrics aim to address security risks throughout the entire software development life cycle (SDLC). The importance of this work comes from the fact that assessing security risks at early stages of the development life cycle can help implement efficient solutions before the software is delivered to the customer. The proposed metrics are defined using the goal/question/metric method. It is anticipated that software engineers will use these metrics in combination with other techniques to detect security risks and prevent these risks from becoming reality. This work is part of a larger research project that aims at examining the concept of "Design for Security". The objective is to investigate software engineering techniques to support security requirements from the very beginning of the development process.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207