MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212800749 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.110505

Software Supply Chain Attacks, a Threat to Global Cybersecurity: SolarWinds’ Case Study

2021· article· en· W3212800749 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeferson Martínez, Javier M. Durán

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityComputer scienceSoftware developmentGovernment (linguistics)SoftwareSupply chainVulnerability (computing)Secure codingSoftware security assuranceEngineeringBusinessInformation securitySecurity serviceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploitation of a vulnerability that compromised the source code of the Solar Winds’ Orion system, a software that is used widely by different government and industry actors in the world for the administration and monitoring of networks; brought to the fore a type of stealth attack that has been gaining momentum: supply chain attacks. The main problem in the violation of the software supply chain is that, from 85% to 97% of the code currently used in the software development industry comes from the reuse of open source code frameworks, repositories of third-party software and APIs, creating potential vulnerabilities in the development cycle of a software product. This research analyzes the SolarWinds case study from an exploratory review of academic literature, government information, but also from the articles and reports that are published by different cybersecurity consulting firms and software providers. Then, a set of good practices is proposed such as: Zero trust, Multi-Factor authentication mechanisms (MFA), strategies such as SBOM and the recommendations of the CISA guide to defend against this type of attack. Finally, the research discusses about how to improve response times and prevention against this type of attacks, also future research related to the subject is suggested, such as the application of Machine Learning and Blockchain technologies. Additionally for risk reduction, in addition to the management and articulation of IT teams that participate in all the actors that are part of the software life cycle under a DevSecOps approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations79
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207