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).
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.