Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be?

IF 6.6 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Pub Date : 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1145/3654443
Emanuele Iannone, Giulia Sellitto, Emanuele Iaccarino, Filomena Ferrucci, Andrea De Lucia, Fabio Palomba
{"title":"Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be?","authors":"Emanuele Iannone, Giulia Sellitto, Emanuele Iaccarino, Filomena Ferrucci, Andrea De Lucia, Fabio Palomba","doi":"10.1145/3654443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With the rate of discovered and disclosed vulnerabilities escalating, researchers have been experimenting with machine learning to predict whether a vulnerability will be exploited. Existing solutions leverage information unavailable when a CVE is created, making them unsuitable just after the disclosure. This paper experiments with <i>early</i> exploitability prediction models driven exclusively by the initial CVE record, i.e., the original description and the linked online discussions. Leveraging NVD and Exploit Database, we evaluate 72 prediction models trained using six traditional machine learning classifiers, four feature representation schemas, and three data balancing algorithms. We also experiment with five pre-trained large language models (LLMs). The models leverage seven different corpora made by combining three data sources, i.e., CVE description, <span>Security Focus</span>, and <span>BugTraq</span>. The models are evaluated in a <i>realistic</i>, time-aware fashion by removing the training and test instances that cannot be labeled <i>“neutral”</i> with sufficient confidence. The validation reveals that CVE descriptions and <span>Security Focus</span> discussions are the best data to train on. Pre-trained LLMs do not show the expected performance, requiring further pre-training in the security domain. We distill new research directions, identify possible room for improvement, and envision automated systems assisting security experts in assessing the exploitability.</p>","PeriodicalId":50933,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3654443","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

With the rate of discovered and disclosed vulnerabilities escalating, researchers have been experimenting with machine learning to predict whether a vulnerability will be exploited. Existing solutions leverage information unavailable when a CVE is created, making them unsuitable just after the disclosure. This paper experiments with early exploitability prediction models driven exclusively by the initial CVE record, i.e., the original description and the linked online discussions. Leveraging NVD and Exploit Database, we evaluate 72 prediction models trained using six traditional machine learning classifiers, four feature representation schemas, and three data balancing algorithms. We also experiment with five pre-trained large language models (LLMs). The models leverage seven different corpora made by combining three data sources, i.e., CVE description, Security Focus, and BugTraq. The models are evaluated in a realistic, time-aware fashion by removing the training and test instances that cannot be labeled “neutral” with sufficient confidence. The validation reveals that CVE descriptions and Security Focus discussions are the best data to train on. Pre-trained LLMs do not show the expected performance, requiring further pre-training in the security domain. We distill new research directions, identify possible room for improvement, and envision automated systems assisting security experts in assessing the exploitability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对刚披露的软件漏洞进行早期和现实的可利用性预测:它有多可靠?
随着漏洞被发现和披露的速度不断加快,研究人员一直在尝试利用机器学习来预测漏洞是否会被利用。现有的解决方案利用的是 CVE 创建时无法获得的信息,因此不适合在漏洞刚刚披露后使用。本文实验了完全由初始 CVE 记录(即原始描述和链接的在线讨论)驱动的早期可利用性预测模型。利用 NVD 和漏洞利用数据库,我们评估了使用六种传统机器学习分类器、四种特征表示模式和三种数据平衡算法训练的 72 个预测模型。我们还使用五个预训练的大型语言模型(LLM)进行了实验。这些模型利用了由三个数据源(即 CVE 描述、Security Focus 和 BugTraq)组合而成的七个不同的语料库。通过移除无法以足够置信度标记为 "中性 "的训练和测试实例,以现实的、时间感知的方式对模型进行了评估。验证结果表明,CVE 描述和安全焦点讨论是最佳的训练数据。预训练的 LLM 没有显示出预期的性能,因此需要在安全领域进行进一步的预训练。我们提炼出了新的研究方向,确定了可能的改进空间,并设想了协助安全专家评估可利用性的自动化系统。
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 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
164
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Designing and building a large, complex software system is a tremendous challenge. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) publishes papers on all aspects of that challenge: specification, design, development and maintenance. It covers tools and methodologies, languages, data structures, and algorithms. TOSEM also reports on successful efforts, noting practical lessons that can be scaled and transferred to other projects, and often looks at applications of innovative technologies. The tone is scholarly but readable; the content is worthy of study; the presentation is effective.
期刊最新文献
Effective, Platform-Independent GUI Testing via Image Embedding and Reinforcement Learning Bitmap-Based Security Monitoring for Deeply Embedded Systems Harmonising Contributions: Exploring Diversity in Software Engineering through CQA Mining on Stack Overflow An Empirical Study on the Characteristics of Database Access Bugs in Java Applications Self-planning Code Generation with Large Language Models
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1