Security Developer Studies with GitHub Users: Exploring a Convenience Sample

121 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistants (2022, neutral): “While this may have an impact on the generalizability of the results due to differences in behavior and code performance, previous work [51] has found no difference between experienced software developers and students regarding security-aware coding.”
Build It, Break It, Fix It: Contesting Secure Development (2016, background): “cure tools and APIs are more attractive than less secure ones, enable “security champions” with broadly defined roles, and favoring ongoing dialogue over checklists [8, 68, 70]. Developer Observatory [2, 3, 59] is an online platform that enables large-scale controlled security experiments by asking ”
Understanding security mistakes developers make: Qualitative analysis from Build It, Break It, Fix It (2020, background): “Further, prior work suggests that in at least some secure development studies, students can substitute effectively for professionals, as only security experience, not general development experience, is correlated with security outcomes [3,4,56,58].”
An Empirical Study of C++ Vulnerabilities in Crowd-Sourced Code Examples (2019, methodology): “Previous studies on security in GitHub projects examined the following themes: secure coding, sentiment analysis, security issues [47], [48], [49], [50].”