Fractality and Percolation Sensitivity in Software Vulnerability Networks: A Study of CWE–CVE–CPE Relations
Source abstract
Abstract
Public CVE feeds add tens of thousands of entries each year, overwhelming patch-management capacity. We model the CWE–CVE–CPE triad and, for each CWE, build count-weighted product co-exposure graphs by projecting CVE–CPE links. Because native graphs are highly fragmented, we estimate graph-distance box-counting dimensions component-wise on the fragmented graphs using greedy box covering on unweighted shortest paths, then assess significance on the largest component of reconnected graphs. Significance is evaluated against degree-preserving nulls, reporting null percentiles, a z-score–based p-value, and complementary KS checks. We further characterise meso-scale organisation via normalized rich-club coefficients and k-core structure. Additionally, we quantify percolation sensitivity on the reconnected graphs by contrasting targeted removals with random failures for budgets of 1%, 5%, 10%, and 20%. This quantification involves tracking changes in largest-component size, average shortest-path length on the LCC, and global efficiency, and an amplification factor at 10%. Our corpus covers the MITRE CWE Top 25; we report high-level summaries for all 25 and perform the deepest null-model and sensitivity analyses on a subset of 12 CWEs selected on the basis of CVE volume. This links self-similar topology on native fragments with rich-club/core organisation and disruption sensitivity on reconnections, yielding actionable, vendor/software-type-aware mitigation cues. Structural indices are used descriptively to surface topological hotspots within CWE-conditioned product networks and are interpreted alongside, not in place of, EPSS/KEV/CVSS severity metrics.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Complex Network Analysis Techniques · Information and Cyber Security
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Automatic Control and Computers, Department of Computers, National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania
Computer and Cyber Security Department, Faculty of Informations Systems and Cyber Security, Military Technical Academy ‘Ferdinand I’, 050141 Bucharest, Romania
Funding
Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CCCDI-UEFISCDI
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. (2025, June 20). About CVE–Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. Available online: https://cve.mitre.org/about/.
2. (2025, June 20). Common Weakness Enumeration. Available online: https://cwe.mitre.org.
3. (2025, June 20). NVD Vulnerability Details and Relations (CVE, CWE, CPE), Available online: https://nvd.nist.gov.
4. Self-Similarity of Complex Networks10.1038/nature03248 ↗
5. A Decade of Reoccurring Software Weaknesses10.1109/MSEC.2021.3082757 ↗
6. (2025, June 20). Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS): Model Documentation, Version 4.0. Available online: https://www.first.org/epss/.
7. (2025, June 20). Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog, Available online: https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog.
8. Allodi, L. (2015, January 4–6). The Heavy Tails of Vulnerability Exploitation. Proceedings of the Engineering Secure Software and Systems (ESSoS), Milan, Italy. LNCS.10.1007/978-3-319-15618-7_11 ↗
9. Shi, Z., Matyunin, N., Graffi, K., and Starobinski, D. (2023). Uncovering CWE–CVE–CPE Relations with Threat Knowledge Graphs. arXiv.10.1109/SecDev53368.2022.00028 ↗
10. Threat Knowledge Graph Construction for Proactive Defence
11. Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132 ↗
12. Tumminello, M., Miccichè, S., Lillo, F., Piilo, J., and Mantegna, R.N. (2011). Statistically Validated Networks in Bipartite Complex Systems. PLoS ONE, 6.10.1371/journal.pone.0017994 ↗
13. Extracting the multiscale backbone of complex weighted networks10.1073/pnas.0808904106 ↗
14. Meta-validation of bipartite network projections10.1038/s42005-022-00856-9 ↗
15. Neal, Z.P., and Neal, J.W. (2024). Illustrating the importance of edge constraints in backbones of bipartite projections. PLoS ONE, 19.10.1371/journal.pone.0302973 ↗
16. Gou, L., Wei, B., Sadiq, R., and Deng, Y. (2016). Topological Vulnerability Evaluation Model Based on Fractal Dimension of Complex Networks. PLoS ONE, 11.10.1371/journal.pone.0146896 ↗
17. Evaluating Topological Vulnerability Based on Fuzzy Fractal Dimension
18. A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence10.1002/rsa.3240060204 ↗
19. The average distances in random graphs with given expected degrees10.1073/pnas.252631999 ↗
20. Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks10.1126/science.1065103 ↗
21. Detecting rich-club ordering in complex networks10.1038/nphys209 ↗
22. Prominence and Control: The Weighted Rich-Club Effect10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.168702 ↗
23. Network structure and minimum degree10.1016/0378-8733(83)90028-X ↗
24. Batagelj, V., and Zaveršnik, M. (2003). An O(m) Algorithm for Cores Decomposition of Networks. arXiv.
25. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks10.1038/35019019 ↗
26. Breakdown of the Internet under intentional attack10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3682 ↗
27. Influence maximization in complex networks through optimal percolation10.1038/nature14604 ↗
28. (2025, June 20). 2024 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses. Available online: https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/archive/2024/2024_cwe_top25.html.