The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Complexity, Code Churn, and Developer Activity Metrics as Indicators of Software Vulnerabilities
Abstract
Security inspection and testing require experts in security who think like an attacker. Security experts need to know code locations on which to focus their testing and inspection efforts. Since vulnerabilities are rare occurrences, locating vulnerable code locations can be a challenging task. We investigated whether software metrics obtained from source code and development history are discriminative and predictive of vulnerable code locations. If so, security experts can use this prediction to prioritize security inspection and testing efforts. The metrics we investigated fall into three categories: complexity, code churn, and developer activity metrics. We performed two empirical case studies on large, widely used open-source projects: the Mozilla Firefox web browser and the Red Hat Enterprise Linux kernel. The results indicate that 24 of the 28 metrics collected are discriminative of vulnerabilities for both projects. The models using all three types of metrics together predicted over 80 percent of the known vulnerable files with less than 25 percent false positives for both projects. Compared to a random selection of files for inspection and testing, these models would have reduced the number of files and the number of lines of code to inspect or test by over 71 and 28 percent, respectively, for both projects.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Martinez, A. M., & Kak, A. C. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.908974 · Cited by 3,249
Use of relative code churn measures to predict system defect density
Nagappan, N., & Ball, T. (2005) · Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '05 · doi:10.1145/1062455.1062514 · Cited by 775
Cited by
An empirical study on software defect prediction with a simplified metric set
He, P., Li, B., Liu, X., Chen, J., & Ma, Y. (2015) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.11.006 · Cited by 309
Respite for SMEs: A Systematic Review of Socio-Technical Cybersecurity Metrics
van Haastrecht, M., Yigit Ozkan, B., Brinkhuis, M., & Spruit, M. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11156909 · Cited by 45
No Single Metric Captures Productivity
Jaspan, C., & Sadowski, C. (2019) · Rethinking Productivity in Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-4221-6_2 · Cited by 20
The role of firm AI capabilities in generative AI-pair coding
Bughin, J. (2024) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2024.2428187 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Shin, Y., Meneely, A., Williams, L., & Osborne, J. A.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 772-787
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2043837581
- Cited by
- 607
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 35.24
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Evaluating Complexity, Code Churn, and Developer Activity Metrics as Indicators of Software Vulnerabilities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2010.81
- The paper
- Shin, Y., Meneely, A., Williams, L., & Osborne, J. A. (2011). Evaluating Complexity, Code Churn, and Developer Activity Metrics as Indicators of Software Vulnerabilities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2010.81
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.