Why Security Defects Go Unnoticed during Code Reviews? A Case-Control Study of the Chromium OS Project
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2024From Vulnerabilities to Remediation: A Systematic Literature Review of LLMs in Code Securitycited by 9
- 2024An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles, and Influential Factorscited by 6
- 2026AgenticSCR: An Autonomous Agentic Secure Code Review for Immature Vulnerabilities Detectioncited by 2
- 2026SEVRA-BENCH: Social Engineering of Vulnerabilities in Review Agentscited by 1
- 2025Improving Automated Secure Code Reviews: A Synthetic Dataset for Code Vulnerability Flawscited by 0
- 2026SEVRA-BENCH: Social Engineering of Vulnerabilities in Review Agents11 Jun 2026
- 2026AgenticSCR: An Autonomous Agentic Secure Code Review for Immature Vulnerabilities Detection27 Jan 2026
- 2025Improving Automated Secure Code Reviews: A Synthetic Dataset for Code Vulnerability Flaws22 Apr 2025
- 2024From Vulnerabilities to Remediation: A Systematic Literature Review of LLMs in Code Security19 Dec 2024
- 2024An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles, and Influential Factors29 Jan 2024