2008 Eighth IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation 2008
DOI: 10.1109/scam.2008.20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Evolution and Decay of Statically Detected Source Code Vulnerabilities

Abstract: Abstract

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 3-b shows the median LDA and Unix diff accuracy over the experiments performed, and the interquartile range (between the third and first quartile). We tested the significance of the obtained results, by using a two-tailed 2 Mann-Whitney test. The LDA algorithm exhibits significantly higher performances in the identification of changed lines (p-value<0.001), while the Unix diff performs better in the 1 Since we are expecting improvements over subsequent steps.…”
Section: Performances Of the Line Differencing Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Figure 3-b shows the median LDA and Unix diff accuracy over the experiments performed, and the interquartile range (between the third and first quartile). We tested the significance of the obtained results, by using a two-tailed 2 Mann-Whitney test. The LDA algorithm exhibits significantly higher performances in the identification of changed lines (p-value<0.001), while the Unix diff performs better in the 1 Since we are expecting improvements over subsequent steps.…”
Section: Performances Of the Line Differencing Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The LDA algorithm exhibits significantly higher performances in the identification of changed lines (p-value<0.001), while the Unix diff performs better in the 1 Since we are expecting improvements over subsequent steps. 2 Since we do not know a-priori whether ldiff performs better than the Unix diff. identification of added and deleted lines (p-value=0.009 and <0.0001 respectively) because ldiff classifies added and deleted lines as potential changed lines, causing an increment of both false negatives and positives.…”
Section: Performances Of the Line Differencing Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a companion paper [32] we presented a preliminary version of this work. The present paper extends the previous one by analyzing how and in what context vulnerabilities are removed, and to what extent developers document such removals.…”
Section: Maintenance Of Vulnerable Codementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using this framework, different kinds of studies have been conducted, among others (i) to investigate the changeability design patterns [1]; (ii) to analyze the maintenance of clones (preliminary results limited to manual analysis are reported in [2]); and (iii) to investigate on the evolution and decay of vulnerabilities in network applications [15].…”
Section: Achievementsmentioning
confidence: 99%