{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02707581227436823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.093406593406593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Which is the right source for vulnerability studies?: an empirical analysis on Mozilla Firefox

Recent years have seen a trend towards the notion of quantitative security assessment and the use of empirical methods to analyze or predict vulnerable components. Many papers focused on vulnerability discovery models based upon either a public vulnerability databases (e.g., CVE, NVD), or vendor ones (e.g., MFSA). Some combine these databases. Most of these works address a knowledge problem: can we understand the empirical causes of vulnerabilities? Can we predict them? Still, if the data sources do not completely capture the phenomenon we are interested in predicting, then our predictor might be optimal with respect to the data we have but unsatisfactory in practice.
 In our work, we focus on a more fundamental question: the quality of vulnerability database. We provide an analytical comparison of different security metric papers and the relative data sources. We also show, based on experimental data for Mozilla Firefox, how using different data sources might lead to completely different results.