BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Tom Mens

Tom Mens contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On the Impact of Security Vulnerabilities in the npm and RubyGems Dependency Networks

The increasing interest in open source software has led to the emergence of large language-specific package distributions of reusable software libraries, such as npm and RubyGems. These software packages can be subject to vulnerabilities that may expose dependent packages through explicitly declared dependencies. Using Snyk's vulnerability database, this article empirically studies vulnerabilities affecting npm and RubyGems packages. We analyse how and when these vulnerabilities are disclosed and fixed, and how their prevalence changes over time. We also analyse how vulnerable packages expose their direct and indirect dependents to vulnerabilities. We distinguish between two types of dependents: packages distributed via the package manager, and external GitHub projects depending on npm packages. We observe that the number of vulnerabilities in npm is increasing and being disclosed faster than vulnerabilities in RubyGems. For both package distributions, the time required to disclose vulnerabilities is increasing over time. Vulnerabilities in npm packages affect a median of 30 package releases, while this is 59 releases in RubyGems packages. A large proportion of external GitHub projects is exposed to vulnerabilities coming from direct or indirect dependencies. 33% and 40% of dependency vulnerabilities to which projects and packages are exposed, respectively, have their fixes in more recent releases within the same major release range of the used dependency. Our findings reveal that more effort is needed to better secure open source package distributions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

A ground-truth dataset and classification model for detecting bots in GitHub issue and PR comments

Bots are frequently used in Github repositories to automate repetitive activities that are part of the distributed software development process. They communicate with human actors through comments. While detecting their presence is important for many reasons, no large and representative ground-truth dataset is available, nor are classification models to detect and validate bots on the basis of such a dataset. This paper proposes a ground-truth dataset, based on a manual analysis with high interrater agreement, of pull request and issue comments in 5,000 distinct Github accounts of which 527 have been identified as bots. Using this dataset we propose an automated classification model to detect bots, taking as main features the number of empty and non-empty comments of each account, the number of comment patterns, and the inequality between comments within comment patterns. We obtained a very high weighted average precision, recall and F1-score of 0.98 on a test set containing 40% of the data. We integrated the classification model into an open source command-line tool to allow practitioners to detect which accounts in a given Github repository actually correspond to bots.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Package Freshness in Linux Distributions

The open-source Linux operating system is available through a wide variety of distributions, each containing a collection of installable software packages. It can be important to keep these packages as fresh as possible to benefit from new features, bug fixes and security patches. However, not all distributions place the same emphasis on package freshness. We conducted a survey in the first half of 2020 with 170 Linux users to gauge their perception of package freshness in the distributions they use, the value they place on package freshness and the reasons why they do so, and the methods they use to update packages. The results of this survey reveal that, for the aforementioned reasons, keeping packages up to date is an important concern to Linux users and that they install and update packages through their distribution's official repositories whenever possible, but often resort to third-party repositories and package managers for proprietary software and programming language libraries. Some distributions are perceived to be much quicker in deploying package updates than others. These results are valuable to assess the requirements and expectations of Linux users in terms of package freshness.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access