Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Emanuele Iaccarino

dblp:381/2248 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › vulnerability management
vulnerability disclosure
0.812024
Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be? · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2024
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.812024
Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be? · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2024
Systems and software security
vulnerability management
0.812024
Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be? · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

machine learning · 0.8large language model · 0.8data balancing · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be?
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.
Emanuele Iannone, Giulia Sellitto, Emanuele Iaccarino, Filomena Ferrucci, Andrea De Lucia, Fabio Palomba
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.3