Paper detail

A Historical and Statistical Studyof the Software Vulnerability Landscape

Understanding the landscape of software vulnerabilities is key for developing effective security solutions. Fortunately, the evaluation of vulnerability databases that use a framework for communicating vulnerability attributes and their severity scores, such as the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), can help shed light on the nature of publicly published vulnerabilities. In this paper, we characterize the software vulnerability landscape by performing a historical and statistical analysis of CVSS vulnerability metrics over the period of 2005 to 2019 through using data from the National Vulnerability Database. We conduct three studies analyzing the following: the distribution of CVSS scores (both empirical and theoretical), the distribution of CVSS metric values and how vulnerability characteristics change over time, and the relative rankings of the most frequent metric value over time. Our resulting analysis shows that the vulnerability threat landscape has been dominated by only a few vulnerability types and has changed little during the time period of the study. The overwhelming majority of vulnerabilities are exploitable over the network. The complexity to successfully exploit these vulnerabilities is dominantly low; very little authentication to the target victim is necessary for a successful attack. And most of the flaws require very limited interaction with users. However on the positive side, the damage of these vulnerabilities is mostly confined within the security scope of the impacted components. A discussion of lessons that could be learned from this analysis is presented.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.