Given the widespread prevalence of vulnerabilities, remediation is a critical phase that every software project has to go through. When comparing the studies on understanding the security vulnerabilities in software, such as vulnerability discovery and patterns, there is a lack of studies on the vulnerability remediation phase. To address this, we have done a timeline analysis for 130 of the most dependent upon open source projects written in JavaScript language, hosted on GitHub to understand the nature and the lifetime of the vulnerabilities in those projects. We used a static code analyzer on 501K commits from the repositories to identify commits that introduced new vulnerabilities to the code and fixed existing vulnerabilities in the code. In 90% of the projects, we identified that a commit that fixed an existing vulnerability had introduced one or more new vulnerabilities into the code. On average, 16% of the commits intended to fix vulnerabilities have introduced one or more new vulnerabilities from the analyzed projects. We also found that 18% of the total vulnerabilities found in those projects have originated from a commit meant to fix an existing vulnerability, and 78% of those vulnerabilities could have been avoided of introduction if the developers were to use proper internal testing. Here, we demonstrate Sequza, a visualization tool to help organizations detect such instances at the earliest possible.

While there is a large body of work on understanding vulnerabilities in the wild, little has been done to understand the dynamics of the remediation phase of the development cycle. To this end, we have done a timeline analysis on 118K commits from 53 of the most used JavaScript projects from GitHub to understand the provenance and prevalence of vulnerabilities in those projects. We used a vulnerability detector (CodeQL) to filter commits that introduced vulnerabilities and the commits that fixed a prior vulnerability. We found that in 82% of the projects, a commit fixing a prior vulnerability, in turn, introduced one or more new vulnerabilities. Among those projects, on average, 18% of the commits intended to fix vulnerabilities, in turn, introduced one or more new vulnerabilities. We also found that 50% of the total vulnerabilities found in those projects originated from a commit meant to fix a prior vulnerability, and 78% of those vulnerabilities could have been avoided if they were to use proper internal testing. We provide critical insights into how proper internal testing can avoid a significant portion of vulnerabilities, increasing organizations' security posture.