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.

Stephanie de Smale

dblp:181/7697 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 · 77% Usable security · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › vulnerability management
patch prioritization
0.712023
No One Drinks From the Firehose: How Organizations Filter and Prioritize Vulnerability Information · SP 2023
Systems and software security
vulnerability management
0.712023
No One Drinks From the Firehose: How Organizations Filter and Prioritize Vulnerability Information · SP 2023
Usable security › organizational security
organizational security practice
0.212023
No One Drinks From the Firehose: How Organizations Filter and Prioritize Vulnerability Information · SP 2023
Usable security
security operations
0.212023
No One Drinks From the Firehose: How Organizations Filter and Prioritize Vulnerability Information · SP 2023

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

semi-structured interviews · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 No One Drinks From the Firehose: How Organizations Filter and Prioritize Vulnerability Information
abstract
The number of published software vulnerabilities is increasing every year. How do organizations stay in control of their attack surface despite their limited staff resources? Prior work has analyzed the overall software vulnerability ecosystem as well as patching processes within organizations, but not how these two are connected.We investigate this missing link through semi-structured interviews with 22 organizations in critical infrastructure and government services. We analyze where in these organizations the responsibility is allocated to collect and triage information about software vulnerabilities, and find that none of our respondents is acquiring such information comprehensively, not even in a reduced and aggregated form like the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). This means that information on known vulnerabilities will be missed, even in critical infrastructure organizations. We observe that organizations apply implicit and explicit coping mechanisms to reduce their intake of vulnerability information, and identify three trade-offs in these strategies: independence, pro-activeness and formalization.Although our respondents’ behavior is in conflict with the widely accepted security advice to collect comprehensive vulnerability information about active systems, no respondents recall having experienced a security incident that was associated with missing information on a known software vulnerability. This suggests that, given scarce resources, reducing the intake of vulnerability information by up to 95% can be considered a rational strategy. Our findings raise questions about the allocation of responsibility and accountability for finding vulnerable systems, as well as suggest changing expectations around collecting vulnerability information.
Stephanie de Smale, Rik van Dijk, Xander Bouwman, Jeroen van der Ham, Michel van Eeten
SP1