GitHub和Rosettacode库中代码漏洞分析:比较研究

Abdul Malik, Muhammad Shumail Naveed
{"title":"GitHub和Rosettacode库中代码漏洞分析:比较研究","authors":"Abdul Malik, Muhammad Shumail Naveed","doi":"10.33411/ijist/2022040219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Open-source code hosted online at programming portals is present in 99% of commercial software and is common practice among developers for rapid prototyping and cost-effective development. However, research reports the presence of vulnerabilities, which result in catastrophic security compromise, and the individual, organization, and even national secrecy are all victims of this circumstance. One of the frustrating aspects of vulnerabilities is that vulnerabilities manifest themselves in hidden ways that software developers are unaware of. One of the most critical tasks in ensuring software security is vulnerability detection, which jeopardizes core security concepts like integrity, authenticity, and availability. This study aims to explore security-related vulnerabilities in programming languages such as C, C++, and Java and present the disparities between them hosted at popular code repositories. To attain this purpose, 708 programs were examined by severity-based guidelines. A total of 1371 vulnerable codes were identified, of which 327 in C, 51 in C++, and 993 in Java. Statistical analysis also indicated a substantial difference between them, as there is ample evidence that the Kruskal-Wallis H-test p-value (.000) is below the 0.05 significance level. The Mann-Whitney Test mean rank for GitHub (Mean-rank=676.05) and Rosettacode (Mean-rank=608.64) are also different. The novelty of this article is to identify security vulnerabilities and grasp the nature severity of vulnerability in popular code repositories. This study eventually manifests a guideline for choosing a secure programming language as a successful testing technique that targets vulnerabilities more liable to breaching security.","PeriodicalId":330306,"journal":{"name":"Vol 4 Issue 2","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of Code Vulnerabilities in Repositories of GitHub and Rosettacode: A comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Abdul Malik, Muhammad Shumail Naveed\",\"doi\":\"10.33411/ijist/2022040219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Open-source code hosted online at programming portals is present in 99% of commercial software and is common practice among developers for rapid prototyping and cost-effective development. However, research reports the presence of vulnerabilities, which result in catastrophic security compromise, and the individual, organization, and even national secrecy are all victims of this circumstance. One of the frustrating aspects of vulnerabilities is that vulnerabilities manifest themselves in hidden ways that software developers are unaware of. One of the most critical tasks in ensuring software security is vulnerability detection, which jeopardizes core security concepts like integrity, authenticity, and availability. This study aims to explore security-related vulnerabilities in programming languages such as C, C++, and Java and present the disparities between them hosted at popular code repositories. To attain this purpose, 708 programs were examined by severity-based guidelines. A total of 1371 vulnerable codes were identified, of which 327 in C, 51 in C++, and 993 in Java. Statistical analysis also indicated a substantial difference between them, as there is ample evidence that the Kruskal-Wallis H-test p-value (.000) is below the 0.05 significance level. The Mann-Whitney Test mean rank for GitHub (Mean-rank=676.05) and Rosettacode (Mean-rank=608.64) are also different. The novelty of this article is to identify security vulnerabilities and grasp the nature severity of vulnerability in popular code repositories. This study eventually manifests a guideline for choosing a secure programming language as a successful testing technique that targets vulnerabilities more liable to breaching security.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vol 4 Issue 2\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vol 4 Issue 2\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33411/ijist/2022040219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vol 4 Issue 2","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33411/ijist/2022040219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在线托管在编程门户上的开源代码存在于99%的商业软件中,并且是开发人员用于快速原型和成本效益开发的常见实践。然而,研究报告了漏洞的存在,这些漏洞会导致灾难性的安全危害,个人、组织甚至国家机密都是这种情况的受害者。漏洞令人沮丧的一个方面是,漏洞以软件开发人员不知道的隐藏方式表现出来。确保软件安全性的最关键任务之一是漏洞检测,这会危及完整性、真实性和可用性等核心安全概念。本研究旨在探索编程语言(如C、c++和Java)中与安全相关的漏洞,并展示在流行代码存储库中托管的这些漏洞之间的差异。为了达到这一目的,708个项目接受了基于严重性的指导方针的审查。总共识别出1371个漏洞代码,其中C代码327个,c++代码51个,Java代码993个。统计分析也表明两者之间存在显著差异,有充分证据表明Kruskal-Wallis h检验p值(.000)低于0.05显著性水平。GitHub (mean -rank=676.05)和Rosettacode (mean -rank=608.64)的Mann-Whitney Test平均秩也不同。本文的新颖之处在于识别安全漏洞并掌握流行代码存储库中漏洞的本质严重性。这项研究最终显示了选择安全编程语言的指导方针,作为一种成功的测试技术,针对更容易破坏安全性的漏洞。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Analysis of Code Vulnerabilities in Repositories of GitHub and Rosettacode: A comparative Study
Open-source code hosted online at programming portals is present in 99% of commercial software and is common practice among developers for rapid prototyping and cost-effective development. However, research reports the presence of vulnerabilities, which result in catastrophic security compromise, and the individual, organization, and even national secrecy are all victims of this circumstance. One of the frustrating aspects of vulnerabilities is that vulnerabilities manifest themselves in hidden ways that software developers are unaware of. One of the most critical tasks in ensuring software security is vulnerability detection, which jeopardizes core security concepts like integrity, authenticity, and availability. This study aims to explore security-related vulnerabilities in programming languages such as C, C++, and Java and present the disparities between them hosted at popular code repositories. To attain this purpose, 708 programs were examined by severity-based guidelines. A total of 1371 vulnerable codes were identified, of which 327 in C, 51 in C++, and 993 in Java. Statistical analysis also indicated a substantial difference between them, as there is ample evidence that the Kruskal-Wallis H-test p-value (.000) is below the 0.05 significance level. The Mann-Whitney Test mean rank for GitHub (Mean-rank=676.05) and Rosettacode (Mean-rank=608.64) are also different. The novelty of this article is to identify security vulnerabilities and grasp the nature severity of vulnerability in popular code repositories. This study eventually manifests a guideline for choosing a secure programming language as a successful testing technique that targets vulnerabilities more liable to breaching security.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prominence of Filtering Techniques for Harmonics Mitigation in Advanced Power Electronics Systems Knowledge Acquisition System for Sentiment Analysis Determination and Mitigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) In Lahore (A comparative Study of Landsat 8&9) A Study of Reasons behind Unproductivity and In-decisiveness in public Institutions of Urban Planning in Pakistan. Interpretation of Expressions through Hand Signs Using Deep Learning Techniques
×
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