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

Patrick Hilley

dblp:144/4764 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.212014
Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.212014
Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
Empirical software engineering › developer studies
developer experience
0.112014
Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.112014
Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014

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

manual analysis · 0.4automated analysis · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study
abstract
To focus the efforts of security experts, the goals of this empirical study are to analyze which security vulnerabilities can be discovered by code review, identify characteristics of vulnerable code changes, and identify characteristics of developers likely to introduce vulnerabilities. Using a three-stage manual and automated process, we analyzed 267,046 code review requests from 10 open source projects and identified 413 Vulnerable Code Changes (VCC). Some key results include: (1) code review can identify common types of vulnerabilities; (2) while more experienced contributors authored the majority of the VCCs, the less experienced contributors' changes were 1.8 to 24 times more likely to be vulnerable; (3) the likelihood of a vulnerability increases with the number of lines changed, and (4) modified files are more likely to contain vulnerabilities than new files. Knowing which code changes are more prone to contain vulnerabilities may allow a security expert to concentrate on a smaller subset of submitted code changes. Moreover, we recommend that projects should: (a) create or adapt secure coding guidelines, (b) create a dedicated security review team, (c) ensure detailed comments during review to help knowledge dissemination, and (d) encourage developers to make small, incremental changes rather than large changes.
Amiangshu Bosu, Jeffrey C. Carver, Munawar Hafiz, Patrick Hilley, Derek Janni
SIGSOFT FSE4