Search for: All records

The OpenSSF Scorecard project is an automated tool to monitor the security health of open-source software. This study evaluates the applicability of the Scorecard tool and compares the security practices and gaps in the npm and PyPI ecosystems. 

Due to the ever-increasing number of security breaches, practitioners are motivated to produce more secure software. In the United States, the White House Office released a memorandum on Executive Order (EO) 14028 that mandates organizations provide self-attestation of the use of secure software development practices. The OpenSSF Scorecard project allows practitioners to measure the use of software security practices automatically. However, little research has been done to determine whether the use of security practices improves package security, particularly which security practices have the biggest impact on security outcomes. The goal of this study is to assist practitioners and researchers in making informed decisions on which security practices to adopt through the development of models between software security practice scores and security vulnerability counts. To that end, we developed five supervised machine learning models for npm and PyPI packages using the OpenSSF Scorecard security practices scores and aggregate security scores as predictors and the number of externally-reported vulnerabilities as a target variable. Our models found that four security practices (Maintained, Code Review, Branch Protection, and Security Policy) were the most important practices influencing vulnerability count. However, we had low R2 (ranging from 9% to 12%) when we tested the models to predict vulnerability counts. Additionally, we observed that the number of reported vulnerabilities increased rather than reduced as the aggregate security score of the packages increased. Both findings indicate that additional factors may influence the package vulnerability count. Other factors, such as the scarcity of vulnerability data, time to implicate security practices vs. time to detect vulnerabilities, and the need for more adequate scripts to detect security practices, may impede the data-driven studies to indicate that practice can aid in reducing externally-reported vulnerabilities. We suggest that vulnerability count and security score data be refined so that these measures can be used to provide actionable guidance on security practices.