Trust, but Verify: Evaluating Developer Behavior in Mitigating Security Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Software Projects

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.14273v1
• Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:46:48 GMT
• Title: Trust, but Verify: Evaluating Developer Behavior in Mitigating Security Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Software Projects
• Authors: Janislley Oliveira de Sousa, Bruno Carvalho de Farias, Eddie Batista de Lima Filho, Lucas Carvalho Cordeiro,
• Abstract summary: 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 We have identified common issues in outdated or unmaintained dependencies, that pose significant security risks.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.
• Score: 0.11999555634662631
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This study investigates vulnerabilities in dependencies of sampled open-source software (OSS) projects, the relationship between these and overall project security, and how developers' behaviors and practices influence their mitigation. Through analysis of OSS projects, we have identified common issues in outdated or unmaintained dependencies, including pointer dereferences and array bounds violations, that pose significant security risks. We have also examined developer responses to formal verifier reports, noting a tendency to dismiss potential issues as false positives, which can lead to overlooked vulnerabilities. Our 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. Notably, four vulnerabilities were fixed as a result of this study, demonstrating the effectiveness of our mitigation strategies.

Related papers

• On Categorizing Open Source Software Security Vulnerability Reporting Mechanisms on GitHub [1.7174932174564534]
  Open-source projects are essential to software development, but publicly disclosing vulnerabilities without fixes increases the risk of exploitation. The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) addresses this issue by promoting robust security policies to enhance project security. Current research reveals that many projects perform poorly on OpenSSF criteria, indicating a need for stronger security practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T09:23:24Z)
• OpenAI o1 System Card [274.83891368890977]
  The o1 model series is trained with large-scale reinforcement learning to reason using chain of thought. This report outlines the safety work carried out for the OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o1-mini models, including safety evaluations, external red teaming, and Preparedness Framework evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-21T18:04:31Z)
• Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents [72.92604341646691]
  We introduce Agent-SafetyBench, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate the safety of large language models (LLMs) Agent-SafetyBench encompasses 349 interaction environments and 2,000 test cases, evaluating 8 categories of safety risks and covering 10 common failure modes frequently encountered in unsafe interactions. Our evaluation of 16 popular LLM agents reveals a concerning result: none of the agents achieves a safety score above 60%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T02:35:15Z)
• A Mixed-Methods Study of Open-Source Software Maintainers On Vulnerability Management and Platform Security Features [6.814841205623832]
  This paper investigates the perspectives of OSS maintainers on vulnerability management and platform security features. We find that supply chain mistrust and lack of automation for vulnerability management are the most challenging. barriers to adopting platform security features include a lack of awareness and the perception that they are not necessary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-12T00:15:03Z)
• 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)
• Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy: Risks of LLM Agents for Science [65.77763092833348]
  Intelligent agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, these agents also introduce novel vulnerabilities that demand careful consideration for safety. This paper conducts a thorough examination of vulnerabilities in LLM-based agents within scientific domains, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse and emphasizing the need for safety measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)
• Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models [79.0183835295533]
  We introduce the first benchmark for indirect prompt injection attacks, named BIPIA, to assess the risk of such vulnerabilities. Our analysis identifies two key factors contributing to their success: LLMs' inability to distinguish between informational context and actionable instructions, and their lack of awareness in avoiding the execution of instructions within external content. We propose two novel defense mechanisms-boundary awareness and explicit reminder-to address these vulnerabilities in both black-box and white-box settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T01:08:39Z)
• Exploiting Library Vulnerability via Migration Based Automating Test Generation [16.39796265296833]
  In software development, developers extensively utilize third-party libraries to avoid implementing existing functionalities. Vulnerability exploits, as code snippets provided for reproducing vulnerabilities after disclosure, contain a wealth of vulnerability-related information. This study proposes a new method based on vulnerability exploits, called VESTA, which provides vulnerability exploit tests as the basis for developers to decide whether to update dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T06:46:45Z)
• Enhancing Large Language Models for Secure Code Generation: A Dataset-driven Study on Vulnerability Mitigation [24.668682498171776]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant advancements to code generation, benefiting both novice and experienced developers. However, their training using unsanitized data from open-source repositories, like GitHub, introduces the risk of inadvertently propagating security vulnerabilities. This paper presents a comprehensive study focused on evaluating and enhancing code LLMs from a software security perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T00:32:56Z)
• Do Software Security Practices Yield Fewer Vulnerabilities? [6.6840472845873276]
  The goal of this study is to assist practitioners and researchers making informed decisions on which security practices to adopt. Four security practices were the most important practices influencing vulnerability count. The number of reported vulnerabilities increased rather than reduced as the aggregate security score of the packages increased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-20T20:04:02Z)
• 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.