On the Discoverability of npm Vulnerabilities in Node.js Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliance on vulnerable dependencies is a major threat to software systems. Dependency vulnerabilities are common and remain undisclosed for years. However, once the vulnerability is discovered and publicly known to the community, the risk of exploitation reaches its peak, and developers have to work fast to remediate the problem. While there has been a lot of research to characterize vulnerabilities in software ecosystems, none have explored the problem taking the discoverability into account. Therefore, we perform a large-scale empirical study examining 6,546 Node.js applications. We define three discoverability levels based on vulnerabilities lifecycle (undisclosed, reported, and public). We find that although the majority of the affected applications (99.42%) depend on undisclosed vulnerable packages, 206 (4.63%) applications were exposed to dependencies with public vulnerabilities. The major culprit for the applications being affected by public vulnerabilities is the lack of dependency updates; in 90.8% of the cases, a fix is available but not patched by application maintainers. Moreover, we find that applications remain affected by public vulnerabilities for a long time (103 days). Finally, we devise DepReveal, a tool that supports our discoverability analysis approach, to help developers better understand vulnerabilities in their application dependencies and plan their project maintenance.
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 | 0.012 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".