What is technical debt? Why identify technical debt? Shouldn't it be captured as defects and bugs? Concretely communicating technical debt and its consequences is of interest to both researchers and software engineers. Without validated tools and techniques to achieve this goal with repeatable results, developers resort to ad hoc practices, most commonly using issue trackers or backlog-management practices to capture and track technical debt. We examined 1,264 issues from four issue trackers used in open-source industry and government projects and identified 109 examples of technical debt. Our study, documented in the paper Got Technical Debt? Surfacing Elusive Technical Debt in Issue Trackers, revealed that technical debt has entered the vernacular of developers as they discuss development tasks through issue trackers. Even when developers did not explicitly label issues as technical debt, it was possible to identify technical debt items in these issue trackers using a classification method we developed. We use our results to motivate an improved definition of technical debt and an approach to explicitly report it in issue trackers. In this blog post, we describe our classification method and some implications of tracking debt for both practice and research.
This blog post was co-authored by Nancy Mead, SEI Fellow.
To ensure software will function as intended and is free of vulnerabilities (aka software assurance), software engineers must consider security early in the lifecycle, when the system is being designed and architected. Recent research on vulnerabilities supports this claim: Nearly half the weaknesses identified in the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) repository have been identified as design weaknesses. These weaknesses are introduced early in the lifecycle and cannot be patched away in later phases. They result from poor (or incomplete) security requirements, system designs, and architecture choices for which security has not been given appropriate priority. Effective use of metrics and methods that apply systematic consideration for security risk can highlight gaps earlier in the lifecycle before the impact is felt and when the cost of addressing these gaps is less. This blog post explores the connection between measurement, methods for software assurance, and security. Specifically, we focus on three early lifecycle methods that have shown promise: the Software Assurance Framework (SAF), Security Quality Requirements Engineering (SQUARE) Methodology, and Security Engineering Risk Analysis (SERA) Framework.
The mix of program-scale Agile and technical baseline ownership drives cheaper, better, and faster deployment of software-intensive systems. Although these practices aren't new, the SEI has seen how their combination can have dramatic effects. The Air Force Distributed Common Ground System (AF DCGS)--the Air Force's primary weapon system for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, planning, direction, collection, processing, exploitation, analysis, and dissemination--employs a global communications architecture that connects multiple intelligence platforms and sensors. The AF DCGS challenge is to bring new sensors and processing applications online quickly and efficiently. Other large government software-intensive systems face similar challenges. The SEI has found that Agile cultural transformation--along with strong technical baseline ownership--is critical for programs like DCGS to deliver new capability faster and with greater confidence. These strategies working together can help create incremental and iterative approaches to deliver more frequent and more manageable technical capability. In this blog, I present the SEI's experiences in helping large Department of Defense (DoD) programs, such as AF DCGS, use concepts like owning the technical baseline and Agile software development techniques to deliver new capability on a regular basis.
In 2015, the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) recorded 6,488 new software vulnerabilities, and the NVD documents a total of 74,885 software vulnerabilities discovered between 1988-2016. Static analysis tools examine code for flaws, including those that could lead to software security vulnerabilities, and produce diagnostic messages ("alerts") indicating the location of the purported flaw in the source code, the nature of the flaw, and often additional contextual information. A human auditor then evaluates the validity of the purported code flaws. The effort required to manually audit all alerts and repair all confirmed code flaws is often too much for a project's budget and schedule. Auditors therefore need tools that allow them to triage alerts, strategically prioritizing the alerts for examination. This blog post describes research we are conducting that uses classification models to help analysts and coders prioritize which alerts to address.