Sivana Hamer

Sivana Hamer, Pat Morrison, William Enck et al.

Software supply chains, while providing immense economic and software development value, are only as strong as their weakest link. Over the past several years, there has been an exponential increase in cyberattacks specifically targeting vulnerable links in critical software supply chains. The attacks disrupt day-to-day functioning and threaten the security of nearly everyone on the internet, from billion-dollar companies and government agencies to hobbyist open-source developers. The evolving threat of software supply chain attacks has garnered interest from both the software industry and governments worldwide in improving software supply chain security. On Thursday, July 9th, 2025, 3 researchers from the NSF-backed Secure Software Supply Chain Center (S3C2) conducted a Secure Software Supply Chain Summit with a diverse set of 12 participants from 6 US government agencies. The goals of the Summit were: (1) to enable sharing between participants from different industries regarding practical experiences and challenges with software supply chain security; (2) to help form new collaborations; and (3) to learn about the challenges facing participants to inform our future research directions. The summit consisted of discussions of six topics relevant to the government agencies represented, including software bill of materials (SBOMs); compliance; malicious commits; build infrastructure; culture; and large language models (LLMs) and security. For each topic of discussion, we presented participants with a list of questions to spark conversation and an overview of the discussions of two industry summit held in the past year. In this report, we provide a summary of the summit. The initial discussion questions for each topic are provided in the appendi

Sivana Hamer, Marcelo d'Amorim, Laurie Williams

Sonatype's 2023 report found that 97% of developers and security leads integrate generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), into their development process. Concerns about the security implications of this trend have been raised. Developers are now weighing the benefits and risks of LLMs against other relied-upon information sources, such as StackOverflow (SO), requiring empirical data to inform their choice. In this work, our goal is to raise software developers awareness of the security implications when selecting code snippets by empirically comparing the vulnerabilities of ChatGPT and StackOverflow. To achieve this, we used an existing Java dataset from SO with security-related questions and answers. Then, we asked ChatGPT the same SO questions, gathering the generated code for comparison. After curating the dataset, we analyzed the number and types of Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) vulnerabilities of 108 snippets from each platform using CodeQL. ChatGPT-generated code contained 248 vulnerabilities compared to the 302 vulnerabilities found in SO snippets, producing 20% fewer vulnerabilities with a statistically significant difference. Additionally, ChatGPT generated 19 types of CWE, fewer than the 22 found in SO. Our findings suggest developers are under-educated on insecure code propagation from both platforms, as we found 274 unique vulnerabilities and 25 types of CWE. Any code copied and pasted, created by AI or humans, cannot be trusted blindly, requiring good software engineering practices to reduce risk. Future work can help minimize insecure code propagation from any platform.

Md Nazmul Haque, Sivana Hamer, Brandon Wroblewski et al.

Large-scale cyberattacks, referred to as campaigns, are documented across multiple CTI reports from diverse sources, with some providing a high-level overview of attack techniques and others providing technical details. Extracting attack techniques from reports is essential for organizations to identify the controls required to protect against attacks. Manually extracting techniques at scale is impractical. Existing automated methods focus on single reports, leaving many attack techniques and their controls undetected, resulting in a fragmented view of campaign behavior. The goal of this study is to aid security researchers in extracting attack techniques and controls from a campaign by replicating and comparing the performance of the state-of-the-art ATT&CK technique extraction methods in a multi-report campaign setting compared to prior single-report evaluations. We conduct an empirical study of 29 methods to extract attack techniques, spanning named entity recognition (NER), encoder-based classification, and decoder-based LLM approaches. Our study analyzes 90 CTI reports across three major attack campaigns: SolarWinds, XZ Utils, and Log4j, using both quantitative performance metrics and their impact on controls. Our results show that aggregating multiple CTI reports improves the F1 score by about 26% over single-report analysis, with most approaches reaching performance saturation after 5--15 reports. Despite these gains, extraction performance remains limited, with maximum F1 scores of 78.6% for SolarWinds and 54.9% for XZ Utils. Moreover, up to 33.3% of misclassifications involve semantically similar techniques that share tactics and overlap in descriptions. The misclassification has a disproportionate effect on control coverage. Reports that are longer and include technical details consistently perform better, even though their readability scores are low.