From Chaos to Consistency: The Role of CSAF in Streamlining Security Advisories

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.14937v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 10:22:59 GMT
• Title: From Chaos to Consistency: The Role of CSAF in Streamlining Security Advisories
• Authors: Julia Wunder, Janik Aurich, Zinaida Benenson,
• Abstract summary: The Common Security Advisory Format (CSAF) aims to bring security advisories into a standardized format. Our results show that CSAF is currently rarely used. One of the main reasons is that systems are not yet designed for automation.
• Score: 4.850201420807801
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Security advisories have become an important part of vulnerability management. They can be used to gather and distribute valuable information about vulnerabilities. Although there is a predefined broad format for advisories, it is not really standardized. As a result, their content and form vary greatly depending on the vendor. Thus, it is cumbersome and resource-intensive for security analysts to extract the relevant information. The Common Security Advisory Format (CSAF) aims to bring security advisories into a standardized format which is intended to solve existing problems and to enable automated processing of the advisories. However, a new standard only makes sense if it can benefit users. Hence the questions arise: Do security advisories cause issues in their current state? Which of these issues is CSAF able to resolve? What is the current state of automation? To investigate these questions, we interviewed three security experts, and then conducted an online survey with 197 participants. The results show that problems exist and can often be traced back to confusing and inconsistent structures and formats. CSAF attempts to solve precisely these problems. However, our results show that CSAF is currently rarely used. Although users perceive automation as necessary to improve the processing of security advisories, many are at the same time skeptical. One of the main reasons is that systems are not yet designed for automation and a migration would require vast amounts of resources.

Related papers

• Security Debt in Practice: Nuanced Insights from Practitioners [0.3277163122167433]
  Tight deadlines, limited resources, and prioritization of functionality over security can lead to insecure coding practices.<n>Despite their critical importance, there is limited empirical evidence on how software practitioners perceive, manage, and communicate Security Debts.<n>This study is based on semi-structured interviews with 22 software practitioners across various roles, organizations, and countries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-15T14:28:28Z)
• SafeAgent: Safeguarding LLM Agents via an Automated Risk Simulator [77.86600052899156]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly deployed in real-world applications.<n>We propose AutoSafe, the first framework that systematically enhances agent safety through fully automated synthetic data generation.<n>We show that AutoSafe boosts safety scores by 45% on average and achieves a 28.91% improvement on real-world tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T10:56:06Z)
• Towards Trustworthy GUI Agents: A Survey [64.6445117343499]
  This survey examines the trustworthiness of GUI agents in five critical dimensions. We identify major challenges such as vulnerability to adversarial attacks, cascading failure modes in sequential decision-making. As GUI agents become more widespread, establishing robust safety standards and responsible development practices is essential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T13:26:00Z)
• To Patch or Not to Patch: Motivations, Challenges, and Implications for Cybersecurity [2.7195102129095003]
  We take a fresh look at the question of patching and critically explore why organizations choose to patch or decide against it. Key motivators include organizational needs, the IT/security team's relationship with vendors, and legal and regulatory requirements. There are also numerous significant reasons discovered for why the decision is taken not to patch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T22:52:35Z)
• Position: A taxonomy for reporting and describing AI security incidents [57.98317583163334]
  We argue that specific are required to describe and report security incidents of AI systems. Existing frameworks for either non-AI security or generic AI safety incident reporting are insufficient to capture the specific properties of AI security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• Fundamental Challenges in Cybersecurity and a Philosophy of Vulnerability-Guided Hardening [14.801387585462106]
  Even the most critical software systems turn out to be vulnerable to attacks. Even provable security, meant to provide an indubitable guarantee of security, does not stop attackers from finding security flaws.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T22:40:48Z)
• Communicating on Security within Software Development Issue Tracking [0.0]
  We analyse interfaces from prominent issue trackers to see how they support security communication and how they integrate security scoring. Users in our study were not comfortable with CVSS analysis, though were able to reason in a manner compatible with CVSS. This suggests that adding improvements to communication through CVSS-like questioning in issue tracking software can elicit better security interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-25T16:38:27Z)
• Exploring Technical Debt in Security Questions on Stack Overflow [3.1041707612049887]
  This study investigates the characteristics of security-related TD questions on Stack Overflow (SO) We mined 117,233 security-related questions on SO and used a deep-learning approach to identify 45,078 security-related TD questions. Our analysis revealed that 38% of the security questions on SO are security-related TD questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T06:58:01Z)
• Leveraging Traceability to Integrate Safety Analysis Artifacts into the Software Development Process [51.42800587382228]
  Safety assurance cases (SACs) can be challenging to maintain during system evolution. We propose a solution that leverages software traceability to connect relevant system artifacts to safety analysis models. We elicit design rationales for system changes to help safety stakeholders analyze the impact of system changes on safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T16:03:27Z)
• RealTime QA: What's the Answer Right Now? [137.04039209995932]
  We introduce REALTIME QA, a dynamic question answering (QA) platform that announces questions and evaluates systems on a regular basis. We build strong baseline models upon large pretrained language models, including GPT-3 and T5. GPT-3 tends to return outdated answers when retrieved documents do not provide sufficient information to find an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-27T07:26:01Z)
• Security policy audits: why and how [8.263685033627668]
  This experience paper describes a series of security policy audits. It exposes policy flaws affecting billions of users that can be exploited by low-tech attackers. The solutions, in turn, need to be policy-based.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-22T19:27:18Z)
• Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security (AICS) Workshop at AAAI 2022 [55.573187938617636]
  The workshop will focus on the application of AI to problems in cyber security. Cyber systems generate large volumes of data, utilizing this effectively is beyond human capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-28T18:27:41Z)
• Security for Machine Learning-based Software Systems: a survey of threats, practices and challenges [0.76146285961466]
  How to securely develop the machine learning-based modern software systems (MLBSS) remains a big challenge. latent vulnerabilities and privacy issues exposed to external users and attackers will be largely neglected and hard to be identified. We consider that security for machine learning-based software systems may arise from inherent system defects or external adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-12T23:20:25Z)
• Attacking Open-domain Question Answering by Injecting Misinformation [116.25434773461465]
  We study the risk of misinformation to Question Answering (QA) models by investigating the sensitivity of open-domain QA models to misinformation documents. Experiments show that QA models are vulnerable to even small amounts of evidence contamination brought by misinformation. We discuss the necessity of building a misinformation-aware QA system that integrates question-answering and misinformation detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T01:55:18Z)
• Inspect, Understand, Overcome: A Survey of Practical Methods for AI Safety [54.478842696269304]
  The use of deep neural networks (DNNs) in safety-critical applications is challenging due to numerous model-inherent shortcomings. In recent years, a zoo of state-of-the-art techniques aiming to address these safety concerns has emerged. Our paper addresses both machine learning experts and safety engineers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-29T09:54:54Z)
• 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.