Papers › Where do developers admit their security-related concerns?
Where do developers admit their security-related concerns?
Moritz Mock, Thomas Forrer, Barbara Russo
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Developers use different means to document the security concerns of their code. Because of all of these opportunities, they may forget where the information is stored, or others may not be aware of it, and leave it unmaintained for so long that it becomes obsolete, if not useless. In this work, we analyzed different sources of code documentation from four large-scale, real-world, open-source projects in an industrial setting to understand where developers report their security concerns. In particular, we manually inspected 2.559 instances taken from source code comments, commit messages, and issue trackers. Overall, we found that developers prefer to document security concerns in source code comments and issue trackers. We also found that the longer the comments stay unfixed, the more likely they remain unfixed. Thus, to create awareness among developers, we implemented a pipeline to remind them about the introduction or removal of comments pointing to a security problem.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections