Revisiting the VCCFinder approach for the identification of vulnerability-contributing commits
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
Abstract Detecting vulnerabilities in software is a constant race between development teams and potential attackers. While many static and dynamic approaches have focused on regularly analyzing the software in its entirety, a recent research direction has focused on the analysis of changes that are applied to the code. VCCFinder is a seminal approach in the literature that builds on machine learning to automatically detect whether an incoming commit will introduce some vulnerabilities. Given the influence of VCCFinder in the literature, we undertake an investigation into its performance as a state-of-the-art system. To that end, we propose to attempt a replication study on the VCCFinder supervised learning approach. The insights of our failure to replicate the results reported in the original publication informed the design of a new approach to identify vulnerability-contributing commits based on a semi-supervised learning technique with an alternate feature set. We provide all artefacts and a clear description of this approach as a new reproducible baseline for advancing research on machine learning-based identification of vulnerability-introducing commits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| 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