Paper detail

Cybersecurity Discussions in Stack Overflow: A Developer-Centred Analysis of Engagement and Self-Disclosure Behaviour

Stack Overflow (SO) is a popular platform among developers seeking advice on various software-related topics, including privacy and security. As for many knowledge-sharing websites, the value of SO depends largely on users' engagement, namely their willingness to answer, comment or post technical questions. Still, many of these questions (including cybersecurity-related ones) remain unanswered, putting the site's relevance and reputation into question. Hence, it is important to understand users' participation in privacy and security discussions to promote engagement and foster the exchange of such expertise. Objective: Based on prior findings on online social networks, this work elaborates on the interplay between users' engagement and their privacy practices in SO. Particularly, it analyses developers' self-disclosure behaviour regarding profile visibility and their involvement in discussions related to privacy and security. Method: We followed a mixed-methods approach by (i) analysing SO data from 1239 cybersecurity-tagged questions along with 7048 user profiles, and (ii) conducting an anonymous online survey (N=64). Results: About 33% of the questions we retrieved had no answer, whereas more than 50% had no accepted answer. We observed that "proactive" users tend to disclose significantly less information in their profiles than "reactive" and "unengaged" ones. However, no correlations were found between these engagement categories and privacy-related constructs such as Perceived Control or General Privacy Concerns. Implications: These findings contribute to (i) a better understanding of developers' engagement towards privacy and security topics, and (ii) to shape strategies promoting the exchange of cybersecurity expertise in SO.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.