{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01728024042073629, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.795918367346939, '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}}
On the description of software security patterns

Security patterns describe best practices to handle recurring security problems. Patterns are presented with a special description form that depicts the pattern's specific properties. A description form consists of different sections such as Motivation, Problem or Solution. Many security patterns exist and their description forms are very different. This heterogeneity is a problem for comparing security patterns, their comprehension and application in the software design, and usage in tools that should support their selection in the software development process. Some researchers desire a unique description form and others suggest description forms with new sections that capture security-specific aspects. In order to assess whether additional security-specific facets are actually needed, we assess existing descriptions of software-security patterns in depth. We compare the sections of software-security patterns publications to the common GoF and POSA design pattern templates to identify additionally used sections. Moreover, we align these additionally used sections of software-security patterns to the sections of the aforementioned description forms. Finally, we scan the additional sections to identify sections that possibly capture security-specific properties.