Abstract-Online programming discussion platforms such as Stack Overflow serve as a rich source of information for software developers. Available information include vibrant discussions and oftentimes ready-to-use code snippets. Previous research identified Stack Overflow as one of the most important information sources developers rely on. Anecdotes report that software developers copy and paste code snippets from those information sources for convenience reasons. Such behavior results in a constant flow of community-provided code snippets into production software. To date, the impact of this behaviour on code security is unknown.We answer this highly important question by quantifying the proliferation of security-related code snippets from Stack Overflow in Android applications available on Google Play. Access to the rich source of information available on Stack Overflow including ready-to-use code snippets provides huge benefits for software developers. However, when it comes to code security there are some caveats to bear in mind: Due to the complex nature of code security, it is very difficult to provide ready-to-use and secure solutions for every problem. Hence, integrating a security-related code snippet from Stack Overflow into production software requires caution and expertise. Unsurprisingly, we observed insecure code snippets being copied into Android applications millions of users install from Google Play every day.To quantitatively evaluate the extent of this observation, we scanned Stack Overflow for code snippets and evaluated their security score using a stochastic gradient descent classifier. In order to identify code reuse in Android applications, we applied state-of-the-art static analysis. Our results are alarming: 15.4% of the 1.3 million Android applications we analyzed, contained security-related code snippets from Stack Overflow. Out of these 97.9% contain at least one insecure code snippet.

No abstract

Stack Overflow (SO) is the most popular online Q&A site for developers to share their expertise in solving programming issues. Given multiple answers to certain questions, developers may take the accepted answer, the answer from a person with high reputation, or the one frequently suggested. However, researchers recently observed that SO contains exploitable security vulnerabilities in the suggested code of popular answers, which found their way into security-sensitive highprofile applications that millions of users install every day. This observation inspires us to explore the following questions: How much can we trust the security implementation suggestions on SO? If suggested answers are vulnerable, can developers rely on the community's dynamics to infer the vulnerability and identify a secure counterpart?To answer these highly important questions, we conducted a comprehensive study on security-related SO posts by contrasting secure and insecure advice with the community-given content evaluation. Thereby, we investigated whether SO's gamification approach on incentivizing users is effective in improving security properties of distributed code examples. Moreover, we traced the distribution of duplicated samples over given answers to test whether the community behavior facilitates or prevents propagation of secure and insecure code suggestions within SO.We compiled 953 different groups of similar security-related code examples and labeled their security, identifying 785 secure answer posts and 644 insecure answer posts. Compared with secure suggestions, insecure ones had higher view counts (36,508 vs. 18,713), received a higher score (14 vs. 5), and had significantly more duplicates (3.8 vs. 3.0) on average. 34% of the posts provided by highly reputable so-called trusted users were insecure.Our findings show that based on the distribution of secure and insecure code on SO, users being laymen in security rely on additional advice and guidance. However, the communitygiven feedback does not allow differentiating secure from insecure choices. The reputation mechanism fails in indicating trustworthy users with respect to security questions, ultimately leaving other users wandering around alone in a software security minefield.Index Terms-Stack Overflow, crowdsourced knowledge, social dynamics, security implementation K e y P a i r G e n e r a t o r kpg = K e y P a i r G e n e r a t o r . g e t I n s t a n c e ( " RSA " ) ; kpg . i n i t i a l i z e ( 1 0 2 4 ) ; K e y P a i r kp = kpg . g e n e r a t e K e y P a i r ( ) ; RSAPublicKey pub = ( RSAPublicKey ) kp . g e t P u b l i c ( ) ; RSAPrivateKey p r i v = ( RSAPrivateKey ) kp . g e t P r i v a t e ( ) ;Hash: In the context of password-based key derivation, digital signatures, and authentication/authorization, developers may explicitly invoke broken hash functions. Listing 4 shows an example using MD5.

No abstract