VulNet: Towards improving vulnerability management in the Maven ecosystem

IF 3.5 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Zeyang Ma, Shouvick Mondal, Tse-Hsun (Peter) Chen, Haoxiang Zhang, Ahmed E. Hassan
{"title":"VulNet: Towards improving vulnerability management in the Maven ecosystem","authors":"Zeyang Ma, Shouvick Mondal, Tse-Hsun (Peter) Chen, Haoxiang Zhang, Ahmed E. Hassan","doi":"10.1007/s10664-024-10448-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Developers rely on software ecosystems such as Maven to manage and reuse external libraries (i.e., dependencies). Due to the complexity of the used dependencies, developers may face challenges in choosing which library to use and whether they should upgrade or downgrade a library. One important factor that affects this decision is the number of potential vulnerabilities in a library and its dependencies. Therefore, state-of-the-art platforms such as Maven Repository (MVN) and Open Source Insights (OSI) help developers in making such a decision by presenting vulnerability information associated with every dependency. In this paper, we first conduct an empirical study to understand how the two platforms, MVN and OSI, present and categorize vulnerability information. We found that these two platforms may either overestimate or underestimate the number of associated vulnerabilities in a dependency, and they lack prioritization mechanisms on which dependencies are more likely to cause an issue. Hence, we propose a tool named VulNet to address the limitations we found in MVN and OSI. Through an evaluation of 19,886 versions of the top 200 popular libraries, we find VulNet includes 90.5% and 65.8% of the dependencies that were omitted by MVN and OSI, respectively. VulNet also helps reduce 27% of potentially unreachable or less impactful vulnerabilities listed by OSI in test dependencies. Finally, our user study with 24 participants gave VulNet an average rating of 4.5/5 in presenting and prioritizing vulnerable dependencies, compared to 2.83 (MVN) and 3.14 (OSI).</p>","PeriodicalId":11525,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Software Engineering","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-024-10448-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Developers rely on software ecosystems such as Maven to manage and reuse external libraries (i.e., dependencies). Due to the complexity of the used dependencies, developers may face challenges in choosing which library to use and whether they should upgrade or downgrade a library. One important factor that affects this decision is the number of potential vulnerabilities in a library and its dependencies. Therefore, state-of-the-art platforms such as Maven Repository (MVN) and Open Source Insights (OSI) help developers in making such a decision by presenting vulnerability information associated with every dependency. In this paper, we first conduct an empirical study to understand how the two platforms, MVN and OSI, present and categorize vulnerability information. We found that these two platforms may either overestimate or underestimate the number of associated vulnerabilities in a dependency, and they lack prioritization mechanisms on which dependencies are more likely to cause an issue. Hence, we propose a tool named VulNet to address the limitations we found in MVN and OSI. Through an evaluation of 19,886 versions of the top 200 popular libraries, we find VulNet includes 90.5% and 65.8% of the dependencies that were omitted by MVN and OSI, respectively. VulNet also helps reduce 27% of potentially unreachable or less impactful vulnerabilities listed by OSI in test dependencies. Finally, our user study with 24 participants gave VulNet an average rating of 4.5/5 in presenting and prioritizing vulnerable dependencies, compared to 2.83 (MVN) and 3.14 (OSI).

Abstract Image

VulNet:改进 Maven 生态系统中的漏洞管理
开发人员依赖 Maven 等软件生态系统来管理和重用外部库(即依赖库)。由于所用依赖库的复杂性,开发人员在选择使用哪个库以及是否应升级或降级某个库时可能会面临挑战。影响这一决定的一个重要因素是库及其依赖关系中潜在漏洞的数量。因此,最先进的平台,如 Maven Repository (MVN) 和 Open Source Insights (OSI),通过提供与每个依赖关系相关的漏洞信息,帮助开发人员做出这样的决定。在本文中,我们首先进行了一项实证研究,以了解 MVN 和 OSI 这两个平台是如何呈现和分类漏洞信息的。我们发现,这两个平台可能会高估或低估依赖关系中相关漏洞的数量,而且它们缺乏优先排序机制,无法确定哪些依赖关系更有可能导致问题。因此,我们提出了一个名为 VulNet 的工具,以解决我们在 MVN 和 OSI 中发现的局限性。通过对前 200 个流行库的 19886 个版本进行评估,我们发现 VulNet 分别包含了 MVN 和 OSI 遗漏的 90.5% 和 65.8% 的依赖关系。VulNet 还帮助减少了 OSI 在测试依赖项中列出的 27% 可能无法访问或影响较小的漏洞。最后,我们对 24 位参与者进行的用户研究显示,VulNet 在呈现和优先处理易受攻击的依赖性方面的平均评分为 4.5/5,而 MVN 和 OSI 的评分分别为 2.83 和 3.14。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Empirical Software Engineering
Empirical Software Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
12.20%
发文量
169
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Empirical Software Engineering provides a forum for applied software engineering research with a strong empirical component, and a venue for publishing empirical results relevant to both researchers and practitioners. Empirical studies presented here usually involve the collection and analysis of data and experience that can be used to characterize, evaluate and reveal relationships between software development deliverables, practices, and technologies. Over time, it is expected that such empirical results will form a body of knowledge leading to widely accepted and well-formed theories. The journal also offers industrial experience reports detailing the application of software technologies - processes, methods, or tools - and their effectiveness in industrial settings. Empirical Software Engineering promotes the publication of industry-relevant research, to address the significant gap between research and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信