Paper detail

The (Un)Reliability of NVD Vulnerable Versions Data: an Empirical Experiment on Google Chrome Vulnerabilities

NVD is one of the most popular databases used by researchers to conduct empirical research on data sets of vulnerabilities. Our recent analysis on Chrome vulnerability data reported by NVD has revealed an abnormally phenomenon in the data where almost vulnerabilities were originated from the first versions. This inspires our experiment to validate the reliability of the NVD vulnerable version data. In this experiment, we verify for each version of Chrome that NVD claims vulnerable is actually vulnerable. The experiment revealed several errors in the vulnerability data of Chrome. Furthermore, we have also analyzed how these errors might impact the conclusions of an empirical study on foundational vulnerability. Our results show that different conclusions could be obtained due to the data errors.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.