A Study of C/C++ Code Weaknesses on Stack Overflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stack Overflow hosts millions of solutions that aim to solve developers’ programming issues. In this crowdsourced question answering process, Stack Overflow becomes a code hosting website where developers actively share its code. However, code snippets on Stack Overflow may contain security vulnerabilities, and if shared carelessly, such snippets can introduce security problems in software systems. In this paper, we empirically study the prevalence of theCommon Weakness Enumeration– CWE, in code snippets of C/C++ related answers. We explore the characteristics of$Code_w$, i.e., code snippets that have CWE instances, in terms of the types of weaknesses, the evolution of$Code_w$, and who contributed such code snippets. We find that: 1) 36 percent (i.e., 32 out of 89) CWE types are detected in$Code_w$on Stack Overflow. Particularly, CWE-119, i.e.,improper restriction of operations within the bounds of a memory buffer, is common in both answer code snippets and real-world software systems. Furthermore, the proportion of$Code_w$doubled from 2008 to 2018 after normalizing by the total number of C/C++ snippets in each year. 2) In general, code revisions are associated with a reduction in the number of code weaknesses. However, the majority of$Code_w$had weaknesses introduced in the first version of the code, and these$Code_w$were never revised since then. Only 7.5 percent of users who contributed C/C++ code snippets posted or edited code with weaknesses. Users contributed less code with CWE weakness when they were more active (i.e., they either revised more code snippets or had a higher reputation). We also find that some users tended to have the same CWE type repeatedly in their various code snippets. Our empirical study provides insights to users who share code snippets on Stack Overflow so that they are aware of the potential security issues. To understand the community feedback about improving code weaknesses by answer revisions, we also conduct a qualitative study and find that 62.5 percent of our suggested revisions are adopted by the community. Stack Overflow can perform CWE scanning for all the code that is hosted on its platform. Further research is needed to improve the quality of the crowdsourced knowledge on Stack Overflow.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".