MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559873118 · doi:10.1109/issre.2016.12

SV-AF — A Security Vulnerability Analysis Framework

2016· article· en· W2559873118 on OpenAlexaff
Sultan S. Alqahtani, Ellis E. Eghan, Juergen Rilling

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability managementComputer scienceVulnerability (computing)TraceabilityComputer securitySoftware security assuranceScope (computer science)Secure codingSecurity bugVulnerability assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Software engineeringInformation securityBusinessSecurity service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The globalization of the software industry has introduced a widespread use of system components across traditional system boundaries. Due to this global reuse, also vulnerabilities and security concerns are no longer limited in their scope to individual systems but instead can now affect global software ecosystems. While known vulnerabilities and security concerns are reported in specialized vulnerability databases, these repositories often remain information silos. In this research, we introduce a modeling approach, which eliminates these silos by linking security knowledge with other software artifacts to improve traceability and trust in software products. In our approach, we introduce a Security Vulnerabilities Analysis Framework (SV-AF) to support evidence based vulnerability detection. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the applicability of our presented approach. In these case studies, we link the NVD vulnerability databases and the Maven build repository to trace vulnerabilities across repository and project boundaries. In our analysis, we identify that 750 Maven project releases are directly affected by known security vulnerabilities and by considering transitive dependencies, an additional 415604 Maven projects can be identified as potentially affected by these vulnerabilities.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207