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

Roberta Guadagni

dblp:302/7922 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-5521-9390ORCID · reported

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Software 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%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 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 life cycle
0.712023
The Secret Life of Software Vulnerabilities: A Large-Scale Empirical Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.212023
The Secret Life of Software Vulnerabilities: A Large-Scale Empirical Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories
vulnerability analysis
0.212023
The Secret Life of Software Vulnerabilities: A Large-Scale Empirical Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023

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

manual analysis · 1.3SZZ algorithm · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 The Secret Life of Software Vulnerabilities: A Large-Scale Empirical Study
abstract
Software vulnerabilities are weaknesses in source code that can be potentially exploited to cause loss or harm. While researchers have been devising a number of methods to deal with vulnerabilities, there is still a noticeable lack of knowledge on their software engineering life cycle, for example how vulnerabilities are introduced and removed by developers. This information can be exploited to design more effective methods for vulnerability prevention and detection, as well as to understand the granularity at which these methods should aim. To investigate the life cycle of known software vulnerabilities, we focus on how, when, and under which circumstances the contributions to theintroductionof vulnerabilities in software projects are made, as well as how long, and how they areremoved. We consider 3,663 vulnerabilities with public patches from the National Vulnerability Database—pertaining to 1,096 open-source software projects onGitHub—and define an eight-step process involving both automated parts (e.g., using a procedure based on the SZZ algorithm to find the vulnerability-contributing commits) and manual analyses (e.g., how vulnerabilities were fixed). The investigated vulnerabilities can be classified in 144 categories, take on average at least 4 contributing commits before being introduced, and half of them remain unfixed for at least more than one year. Most of thecontributionsare done by developers with high workload, often when doing maintenance activities, andremovedmostly with the addition of new source code aiming at implementing further checks on inputs. We conclude by distilling practical implications on how vulnerability detectors should work to assist developers in timely identifying these issues.
Emanuele Iannone, Roberta Guadagni, Filomena Ferrucci, Andrea De Lucia, Fabio Palomba
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2
2021 An intelligent system for focused crawling from Big Data sources
Ida Bifulco, Stefano Cirillo, Christian Esposito 0001, Roberta Guadagni, Giuseppe Polese
Expert Syst. Appl.4