Do Developers Update Their Library Dependencies? An Empirical Study on the Impact of Security Advisories on Library Migration (1709.04621v1)

Abstract: Third-party library reuse has become common practice in contemporary software development, as it includes several benefits for developers. Library dependencies are constantly evolving, with newly added features and patches that fix bugs in older versions. To take full advantage of third-party reuse, developers should always keep up to date with the latest versions of their library dependencies. In this paper, we investigate the extent of which developers update their library dependencies. Specifically, we conducted an empirical study on library migration that covers over 4,600 GitHub software projects and 2,700 library dependencies. Results show that although many of these systems rely heavily on dependencies, 81.5% of the studied systems still keep their outdated dependencies. In the case of updating a vulnerable dependency, the study reveals that affected developers are not likely to respond to a security advisory. Surveying these developers, we find that 69% of the interviewees claim that they were unaware of their vulnerable dependencies. Furthermore, developers are not likely to prioritize library updates, citing it as extra effort and added responsibility. This study concludes that even though third-party reuse is commonplace, the practice of updating a dependency is not as common for many developers.

• The paper reveals that 81.5% of systems retain outdated dependencies, exposing a significant gap in responses to security advisories.
• The paper uses comprehensive analysis of over 4,600 GitHub projects, noting a median of one update per system despite heavy library usage.
• The paper highlights that the perceived burden of migration deters updates, underscoring the need for improved tool support and security practices.

Analyzing the Impact of Library Dependency Updates in Software Development

The paper entitled "Do Developers Update Their Library Dependencies? An Empirical Study on the Impact of Security Advisories on Library Migration" focuses on examining the extent to which developers maintain and update their third-party library dependencies, particularly in the context of security advisories and new release announcements. This empirical paper is founded on a comprehensive analysis of over 4,600 GitHub projects, encompassing 2,700 different library dependencies.

The paper's findings reveal that a significant portion of software systems, approximately 81.5%, keep their library dependencies outdated, despite the prevalent use of third-party libraries in software development. This retention of outdated dependencies is particularly concerning when libraries are identified as vulnerable, with developers demonstrating a lack of responsiveness to security advisories. A survey within the paper highlights that 69% of developers were unaware of vulnerabilities in their dependencies, indicating a disconnect between the availability of such notices and developer actions.

Key Insights from the Study

1. Library Usage and Update Frequency:
   • The data highlighted a heavy reliance on libraries, with systems having a median of 147 dependencies. However, updates occurred infrequently, with a median of just one per system. The paper found no strong correlation between the number of dependencies and the frequency of updates, suggesting other factors influence update practices.
2. Developer Response to Security Advisories:
   • Despite the disclosure of vulnerabilities via security advisories, developers often remain inactive in updating their dependencies. Case studies involving security advisories affecting well-known libraries showed varying levels of migration activity post-advisory, signifying the complexity and nuanced nature of developer responses to security vulnerabilities.
3. Impact of Migration Effort:
   • Developers perceived the act of migrating to newer library versions as additional work, often lower on their list of priorities relative to feature development or other project commitments. The effort needed to assess and adapt to new library versions was identified as a critical deterrent to systematic updates.
4. Library Migration Trends:
   • Analysis of library migration plots demonstrated that even when newer, secure versions of libraries are available, many developer systems retain older, more vulnerable versions. The migration from older to newer dependencies is not as systematic or rapid as might be necessary from a security perspective.

Implications for Software Maintenance

The paper's insights carry significant implications for how software projects should handle dependencies. The infrequent update cycle poses potential security risks, suggesting a need for improved mechanisms to alert and motivate developers to act on vulnerabilities more swiftly. Moreover, the perception of library updating as a burden underscores the necessity for tool support and organizational policies that prioritize security and maintenance alongside feature development.

For the software development community, these findings emphasize a need to foster environments where dependency updates are understood as integral to the maintenance phase of software rather than discretionary tasks. Practices such as continuous monitoring of library updates, automated reminders, and more explicit integration of security advisories within development workflows may be beneficial.

Future Directions

Future research could further explore the causative factors behind developers' limited responsiveness to library updates. Investigating how different programming ecosystems handle dependencies and security advisories could reveal insights applicable across various settings. Additionally, developing more intuitive tools and processes that lower the perceived cost and effort of updating dependencies might effectively enhance the safety and reliability of software systems.

In conclusion, while the current paper illuminates critical areas within the field of library dependency management, it also advocates for enhanced practices and supports mechanisms to close the gap between security advisory dissemination and developer action. For practitioners and researchers alike, addressing these gaps represents a path not only to enhance security but also to optimize the overall health and sustainability of software projects.