Threat Intelligence for Predictive Software Fix Prioritization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current software development solutions are reactive and lack predictive capabilities to identify and prioritize critical defects, leading to lower quality and increased vulnerability of released software.

Innovation Solution

Utilize threat intelligence by crawling network websites, services, and APIs to gather information about software defects, analyze this data using machine learning, and generate a second ranking to prioritize defect fixes, displayed in a graphical user interface.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If reactive defect management is used, then development process is simple, but software quality and security are reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesoftware qualityVSAvoiddefect management process

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by proactively identifying and ranking defects before they become critical security issues. Threat intelligence data is gathered and analyzed in advance, and defects are pre-ranked based on potential impact, allowing the organization to address security vulnerabilities before they are exploited in the wild.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback loops by continuously monitoring threat intelligence sources, analyzing new information about defects, and updating defect rankings dynamically. This feedback mechanism ensures that the defect prioritization remains current and reflects the latest security threats and vulnerability information.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Measurement precision

If comprehensive threat intelligence gathering is performed, then defect prioritization accuracy is improved, but information processing time increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedefect ranking accuracyVSAvoidinformation processing time

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial action by focusing information gathering on the most relevant threat intelligence sources and defect types. Rather than exhaustively analyzing every possible data source, the system prioritizes collecting information from key sources that provide the most valuable insights for defect ranking, achieving good accuracy with reduced processing time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes parameters by dynamically adjusting the depth and breadth of information gathering based on defect criticality levels. For high-priority defects, more comprehensive analysis is performed, while for lower-priority defects, streamlined processing is used, optimizing the balance between accuracy and processing time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS12462042B2Using threat intelligence to manage software fixes

Publication Date: 2025.11.04 MICRO FOCUS LLC

AI summary

A defect in the code of a software program is identified. An initial ranking for the defect in the code of the software program is determined. One or more network websites are crawled to identify information associated with the defect in the code of the software program. The information associated with the defect in the defect in the code of the software program is analyzed. In response to analyzing the information associated with the defect in the code of the software program, a second ranking is created for the defect in the code of the software program. The defects in the code of the software program and the second ranking are generated for display in a graphical user interface. By prioritizing which defects are more critical, the quality of the released software improved. In addition, the released software is more secure because critical defects have been removed.