An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Handling Times in CPython

Jukka Ruohonen
2024-11-01
Abstract:The paper examines the handling times of software vulnerabilities in CPython, the reference implementation and interpreter for the today's likely most popular programming language, Python. The background comes from the so-called vulnerability life cycle analysis, the literature on bug fixing times, and the recent research on security of Python software. Based on regression analysis, the associated vulnerability fixing times can be explained very well merely by knowing who have reported the vulnerabilities. Severity, proof-of-concept code, commits made to a version control system, comments posted on a bug tracker, and references to other sources do not explain the vulnerability fixing times. With these results, the paper contributes to the recent effort to better understand security of the Python ecosystem.
Cryptography and Security,Software Engineering
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problems does this paper attempt to solve? This paper aims to study the influencing factors of software vulnerability handling time in CPython (the reference implementation and interpreter of the Python programming language). Specifically, the author attempts to answer the following questions: 1. **How long is the vulnerability handling time?** - The vulnerability handling time includes two main time periods: - **Fixing Time**: The time from the first disclosure of the vulnerability to the final fix. - **CVE Coordination Time**: The time from the first disclosure of the vulnerability to the release of the CVE identifier. 2. **What factors can explain these handling times?** - The author explores the influence of multiple factors on the vulnerability handling time through regression analysis, including: - The identity of the reporter (REPORTER) - The severity of the vulnerability (SEVERITY) - Whether proof - of - concept code is provided (POC) - The number of commits (COMMITS) - The number of external resources cited (REFERENCES) - The number of comments posted in the vulnerability tracking system (COMMENTS) 3. **Can these handling times be predicted?** - The author hopes to find factors that can effectively predict the vulnerability handling time through analysis, thereby providing a basis for improving the vulnerability management and repair process. ### Main Conclusions Through regression analysis of data on 93 vulnerabilities, the author draws the following conclusions: - **The identity of the reporter is the only factor that significantly affects the vulnerability handling time**. There are significant differences in handling time when different people report vulnerabilities. Specifically, just by identifying the reporter's identity, the model can well explain the vulnerability fixing time (R² = 0.923). - **Other factors such as the severity of the vulnerability, proof - of - concept code, the number of commits, the number of comments, and the number of external resources cited cannot significantly explain the vulnerability handling time**. This is different from the results of many previous related studies. ### Research Background and Motivation With the popularity of the Python programming language, as the most commonly used interpreter, the security and vulnerability management of CPython have become particularly important. Understanding the vulnerability handling time and its influencing factors helps to improve software engineering efficiency and reduce security risks. In addition, since CPython is written in C, its vulnerability characteristics are different from those in other Python packages, so research specifically targeting CPython has unique significance. ### Research Methods The author uses two regression analysis methods to process data: 1. **Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression**, combined with the logarithmic transformation \( \ln(x + 1) \). 2. **Huber’s M - estimation**, also combined with the logarithmic transformation \( \ln(x + 1) \) to reduce the impact of outliers. ### Data Source The data comes from CPython's old vulnerability tracking system and contains a total of 93 vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities have detailed processing date records in the old system, enabling the study to accurately measure the handling time. ### Future Research Directions The author suggests that future research can further explore the following aspects: - **In - depth analysis of the characteristics of reporters** to understand why reports from certain people lead to shorter handling times. - **Examine the time delay in the integration of CPython release versions by third - party distributors** to comprehensively assess the actual security risks. - **Compare the vulnerability handling times between different interpreters** to understand whether there are similar or different patterns. In general, this paper provides valuable insights into understanding the CPython vulnerability handling process and points out the direction for future research.