Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2005.14242

The Impact of a Major Security Event on an Open Source Project: The Case of OpenSSL

James Walden
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Context: The Heartbleed vulnerability brought OpenSSL to international attention in 2014. The almost moribund project was a key security component in public web servers and over a billion mobile devices. This vulnerability led to new investments in OpenSSL. Objective: The goal of this study is to determine how the Heartbleed vulnerability changed the software evolution of OpenSSL. We study changes in vulnerabilities, code quality, project activity, and software engineering practices. Method: We use a mixed methods approach, collecting multiple types of quantitative data and qualitative data from web sites and an interview with a developer who worked on post-Heartbleed changes. We use regression discontinuity analysis to determine changes in levels and slopes of code and project activity metrics resulting from Heartbleed. Results: The OpenSSL project made tremendous improvements to code quality and security after Heartbleed. By the end of 2016, the number of commits per month had tripled, 91 vulnerabilities were found and fixed, code complexity decreased significantly, and OpenSSL obtained a CII best practices badge, certifying its use of good open source development practices. Conclusions: The OpenSSL project provides a model of how an open source project can adapt and improve after a security event. The evolution of OpenSSL shows that the number of known vulnerabilities is not a useful indicator of project security. A small number of vulnerabilities may simply indicate that a project does not expend much effort to finding vulnerabilities. This study suggests that project activity and CII badge best practices may be better indicators of code quality and security than vulnerability counts.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James Walden. 2020-05-28. The Impact of a Major Security Event on an Open Source Project: The Case of OpenSSL. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379597.3387465

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗