Security Defect Detection via Code Review: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02326v1
• Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 14:30:41 GMT
• Title: Security Defect Detection via Code Review: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities
• Authors: Jiaxin Yu, Liming Fu, Peng Liang, Amjed Tahir, Mojtaba Shahin
• Abstract summary: Security defects are not prevalently discussed in code review. More than half of the reviewers provided explicit fixing strategies/solutions to help developers fix security defects. Disagreement between the developer and the reviewer are the main causes for not resolving security defects.
• Score: 7.2944322548786715
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: Despite the widespread use of automated security defect detection tools, software projects still contain many security defects that could result in serious damage. Such tools are largely context-insensitive and may not cover all possible scenarios in testing potential issues, which makes them susceptible to missing complex security defects. Hence, thorough detection entails a synergistic cooperation between these tools and human-intensive detection techniques, including code review. Code review is widely recognized as a crucial and effective practice for identifying security defects. Aim: This work aims to empirically investigate security defect detection through code review. Method: To this end, we conducted an empirical study by analyzing code review comments derived from four projects in the OpenStack and Qt communities. Through manually checking 20,995 review comments obtained by keyword-based search, we identified 614 comments as security-related. Results: Our results show that (1) security defects are not prevalently discussed in code review, (2) more than half of the reviewers provided explicit fixing strategies/solutions to help developers fix security defects, (3) developers tend to follow reviewers' suggestions and action the changes, (4) Not worth fixing the defect now and Disagreement between the developer and the reviewer are the main causes for not resolving security defects. Conclusions: Our research results demonstrate that (1) software security practices should combine manual code review with automated detection tools, achieving a more comprehensive coverage to identifying and addressing security defects, and (2) promoting appropriate standardization of practitioners' behaviors during code review remains necessary for enhancing software security.

Related papers

• Fixing Security Vulnerabilities with AI in OSS-Fuzz [9.730566646484304]
  OSS-Fuzz is the most significant and widely used infrastructure for continuous validation of open source systems. We customise the well-known AutoCodeRover agent for fixing security vulnerabilities. Our experience with OSS-Fuzz vulnerability data shows that LLM agent autonomy is useful for successful security patching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T16:20:32Z)
• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• The Impact of SBOM Generators on Vulnerability Assessment in Python: A Comparison and a Novel Approach [56.4040698609393]
  Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) has been promoted as a tool to increase transparency and verifiability in software composition. Current SBOM generation tools often suffer from inaccuracies in identifying components and dependencies. We propose PIP-sbom, a novel pip-inspired solution that addresses their shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-10T10:12:37Z)
• Trust, but Verify: Evaluating Developer Behavior in Mitigating Security Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Software Projects [0.11999555634662631]
  This study investigates vulnerabilities in dependencies of sampled open-source software (OSS) projects. We have identified common issues in outdated or unmaintained dependencies, that pose significant security risks. Results suggest that reducing the number of direct dependencies and prioritizing well-established libraries with strong security records are effective strategies for enhancing the software security landscape.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-26T13:46:48Z)
• An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles and Influential Factors [9.309745288471374]
  Security code review is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Existing security analysis tools struggle with poor generalization, high false positive rates, and coarse detection granularity. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been considered promising candidates for addressing those challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:13:44Z)
• Toward Effective Secure Code Reviews: An Empirical Study of Security-Related Coding Weaknesses [14.134803943492345]
  We conducted an empirical case study in two large open-source projects, OpenSSL and PHP. Based on 135,560 code review comments, we found that reviewers raised security concerns in 35 out of 40 coding weakness categories. Some coding weaknesses related to past vulnerabilities, such as memory errors and resource management, were discussed less often than the vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T00:49:00Z)
• A Novel Approach to Identify Security Controls in Source Code [4.598579706242066]
  This paper enumerates a comprehensive list of commonly used security controls and creates a dataset for each one of them. It uses the state-of-the-art NLP technique Bidirectional Representations from Transformers (BERT) and the Tactic Detector from our prior work to show that security controls could be identified with high confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T21:14:39Z)
• DeepfakeBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Deepfake Detection [55.70982767084996]
  A critical yet frequently overlooked challenge in the field of deepfake detection is the lack of a standardized, unified, comprehensive benchmark. We present the first comprehensive benchmark for deepfake detection, called DeepfakeBench, which offers three key contributions. DeepfakeBench contains 15 state-of-the-art detection methods, 9CL datasets, a series of deepfake detection evaluation protocols and analysis tools, as well as comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T01:34:41Z)
• Pre-trained Encoders in Self-Supervised Learning Improve Secure and Privacy-preserving Supervised Learning [63.45532264721498]
  Self-supervised learning is an emerging technique to pre-train encoders using unlabeled data. We perform first systematic, principled measurement study to understand whether and when a pretrained encoder can address the limitations of secure or privacy-preserving supervised learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-06T21:35:35Z)
• Towards a Fair Comparison and Realistic Design and Evaluation Framework of Android Malware Detectors [63.75363908696257]
  We analyze 10 influential research works on Android malware detection using a common evaluation framework. We identify five factors that, if not taken into account when creating datasets and designing detectors, significantly affect the trained ML models. We conclude that the studied ML-based detectors have been evaluated optimistically, which justifies the good published results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T08:28:08Z)
• Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer Security [74.1816306998445]
  Despite great potential, machine learning in security is prone to subtle pitfalls that undermine its performance. We identify common pitfalls in the design, implementation, and evaluation of learning-based security systems. We propose actionable recommendations to support researchers in avoiding or mitigating the pitfalls where possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T13:09:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.