Why Security Defects Go Unnoticed during Code Reviews? A Case-Control Study of the Chromium OS Project
Rajshakhar Paul, Asif Kamal Turzo, Amiangshu Bosu
Abstract
Peer code review has been found to be effective in identifying security vulnerabilities. However, despite practicing mandatory code reviews, many Open Source Software (OSS) projects still encounter a large number of post-release security vulnerabilities, as some security defects escape those. Therefore, a project manager may wonder if there was any weakness or inconsistency during a code review that missed a security vulnerability. Answers to this question may help a manager pinpointing areas of concern and taking measures to improve the effectiveness of his/her project's code reviews in identifying security defects. Therefore, this study aims to identify the factors that differentiate code reviews that successfully identified security defects from those that missed such defects. With this goal, we conduct a case-control study of Chromium OS project. Using multi-stage semi-automated approaches, we build a dataset of 516 code reviews that successfully identified security defects and 374 code reviews where security defects escaped. The results of our empirical study suggest that the are significant differences between the categories of security defects that are identified and that are missed during code reviews. A logistic regression model fitted on our dataset achieved an AUC score of 0.91 and has identified nine code review attributes that influence identifications of security defects. While time to complete a review, the number of mutual reviews between two developers, and if the review is for a bug fix have positive impacts on vulnerability identification, opposite effects are observed from the number of directories under review, the number of total reviews by a developer, and the total number of prior commits for the file under review.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext dcb356a9-7931-4b31-ac02-e682fa8e6005Cited by top-tier papers4
- Commit Message Matters: Investigating Impact and Evolution of Commit Message QualityJiawei Li, Iftekhar AhmedICSE 2023 · 26 citations
- Unhelpful Assumptions in Software Security ResearchIta Ryan, Utz Roedig, Klaas-Jan StolCCS 2023 · 9 citations
- Defying the Odds: Solana's Unexpected Resilience in Spite of the Security Challenges Faced by DevelopersSébastien Andreina, Tobias Cloosters, Lucas Davi, Jens-Rene Giesen et al.CCS 2024 · 4 citations
- SeRe: A Security-Related Code Review Dataset Aligned with Real-World Review ActivitiesZixiao Zhao, Yanjie Jiang, Hui Liu, Kui Liu et al.ICSE 2026
Related papers
- Less is More: Supporting Developers in Vulnerability Detection during Code ReviewLarissa Braz, Christian Aeberhard, Gül Çalikli, Alberto BacchelliICSE 2022 · 26 citations
- Locating the Security Patches for Disclosed OSS Vulnerabilities with Vulnerability-Commit Correlation RankingXin Tan, Yuan Zhang, Chenyuan Mi, Jiajun Cao et al.CCS 2021 · 43 citations
- An Empirical Study of Static Analysis Tools for Secure Code ReviewWachiraphan Charoenwet, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Van-Thuan Pham, Christoph TreudeISSTA 2024 · 19 citations
- Software security during modern code review: the developer's perspectiveLarissa Braz, Alberto BacchelliFSE 2022 · 28 citations
- A Mixed-Methods Study of Open-Source Software Maintainers On Vulnerability Management and Platform Security FeaturesJessy Ayala, Yu-Jye Tung, Joshua GarciaUSENIX Security 2025
