The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning to Predict Severity of Software Vulnerability Using Only Vulnerability Description
Abstract
Software vulnerabilities pose significant security risks to the host computing system. Faced with continuous disclosure of software vulnerabilities, system administrators must prioritize their efforts, triaging the most critical vulnerabilities to address first. Many vulnerability scoring systems have been proposed, but they all require expert knowledge to determine intricate vulnerability metrics. In this paper, we propose a deep learning approach to predict multi-class severity level of software vulnerability using only vulnerability description. Compared with intricate vulnerability metrics, vulnerability description is the "surface level" information about how a vulnerability works. To exploit vulnerability description for predicting vulnerability severity, discriminative features of vulnerability description have to be defined. This is a challenging task due to the diversity of software vulnerabilities and the richness of vulnerability descriptions. Instead of relying on manual feature engineering, our approach uses word embeddings and a one-layer shallow Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to automatically capture discriminative word and sentence features of vulnerability descriptions for predicting vulnerability severity. We exploit large amounts of vulnerability data from the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database to train and test our approach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278
A vector space model for automatic indexing
Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/361219.361220 · Cited by 7,521
An introduction to latent semantic analysis
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638539809545028 · Cited by 4,880
Neural Programmer-Interpreters
Reed, S., & de Freitas, N. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.06279 · Cited by 347
Cited by
A Systematic Literature Review on the Use of Deep Learning in Software Engineering Research
Watson, C., Cooper, N., Palacio, D. N., Moran, K., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3485275 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Han, Z., Li, X., Xing, Z., Liu, H., & Feng, Z.
- Venue
- 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2017-09
- Pages
- 125-136
- OpenAlex
- W2767521898
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 9.11
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning to Predict Severity of Software Vulnerability Using Only Vulnerability Description. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/icsme.2017.52
- The paper
- Han, Z., Li, X., Xing, Z., Liu, H., & Feng, Z. (2017). Learning to Predict Severity of Software Vulnerability Using Only Vulnerability Description. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). https://doi.org/10.1109/icsme.2017.52
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.