A Quantitative Study of Security Bug Fixes of GitHub Repositories
Daito Nakano, Mingyang Yin, Ryosuke Sato, Abram Hindle, Yasutaka, Kamei, Naoyasu Ubayashi

TL;DR
This study analyzes security bug fixes in GitHub repositories, focusing on CVE references, bug classification, and fix durations to improve vulnerability management practices.
Contribution
It provides a detailed classification of security bug reports and compares reporting and fixing periods, highlighting the need for direct CVE notifications to affected projects.
Findings
35% of bugs are version updates
52% are fixing code or discussions
44% have longer reporting than fixing periods
Abstract
Software is prone to bugs and failures. Security bugs are those that expose or share privileged information and access in violation of the software's requirements. Given the seriousness of security bugs, there are centralized mechanisms for supporting and tracking these bugs across multiple products, one such mechanism is the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) ID description. When a bug gets a CVE, it is referenced by its CVE ID. Thus we explore thousands of Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects, on Github, to determine if developers reference or discuss CVEs in their code, commits, and issues. CVEs will often refer to 3rd party software dependencies of a project and thus the bug will not be in the actual product itself. We study how many of these references are intentional CVE references, and how many are relevant bugs within the projects themselves. We investigate…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSoftware Engineering Research · Software Reliability and Analysis Research · Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
