METHOD OF GROUPING DEFECTS OF DAMAGED SOFTWARE INTO TECHNOLOGICALLY SIMILAR GROUPS

Abstract

The article considers the current scientific and practical problem of grouping defects of damaged software, which
arise as a result of cyberattacks, into technologically similar groups. It is substantiated that modern cyberattacks cause
complex software malfunctions, which are characterized by a high level of uncertainty, dynamic manifestation and
different criticality. It is determined that traditional methods of classifying defects do not provide sufficient efficiency in
the conditions of cyberincidents, since they do not take into account the variability of attack characteristics and the
possibility of partial belonging of defects to several groups at the same time. An analysis of modern scientific research in
the field of detecting, predicting and classifying software defects, as well as clustering and fuzzy logic methods used in
cybersecurity tasks, is carried out. A method of grouping defects of damaged software is proposed based on the use of the
"dynamic kernels" method, which provides adaptive formation of groups of defects in a multidimensional feature space.
The paper describes a mathematical model of defect representation, defines a system of feature weighting coefficients, and proposes a mechanism for assessing the degree of defect membership in the corresponding groups using elements of
fuzzy set theory. The practical testing of the method was performed on the example of grouping software defects after a
cyberattack by such features as the level of data integrity damage, system failures, and security system violations. The
results of the study confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed approach for the automated formation of groups of critical
and minor defects, as well as the possibility of detecting defects with intermediate characteristics. It was established that
the use of the "dynamic kernels" method and fuzzy grouping allows to increase the efficiency of the processes of
identification, analysis, prediction, and recovery of damaged software in conditions of information uncertainty and
changes in the characteristics of cyberattacks.
Keywords: grouping, method, software, defect, mathematical model, software recovery.

References
1. Медзатий, Д., Войчур, Ю., & Войчур, О. (2023). Технологія ідентифікації та класифікації відмов і
вразливостей програмного забезпечення. Вимірювальна та обчислювальна техніка в технологічних процесах, 1,
53–57. https://doi.org/10.31891/2219-9365-2023-73-1-8.
2. Bhaskaran, N. A., & Durairaj, M. (2023). Highlighting bugs in software development codes using SDPET for
enhancing security. Measurement: Sensors, 30, 100930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2023.100930.
3. Ali, M., Mazhar, T., Al-Rasheed, A., Shahzad, T., Yasin Ghadi, Y., & Amir Khan, M. (2024). Enhancing
software defect prediction: A framework with improved feature selection and ensemble machine learning. PeerJ
Computer Science, 10, e1860. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1860.
4. Abbas, S., Aftab, S., Khan, M. A., Ghazal, T. M., Hamadi, H. A., et al. (2023). Data and ensemble machine
learning fusion based intelligent software defect prediction system. Computers, Materials & Continua, 75(3), 6083–6100.
https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2023.037933.
5. Mumtaz, B., Kanwal, S., Alamri, S., & Khan, F. (2021). Feature selection using artificial immune network: An
approach for software defect prediction. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing. https://doi.org/10.32604/
iasc.2021.018405.
6. Alazba, A., & Aljamaan, H. (2022). Software defect prediction using stacking generalization of optimized treebased ensembles. Applied Sciences, 12(9), 4577. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094577.
7. Elentukh, A. (2023). People make mistakes – A survey of common causes of software defects. In Computer
Science and Education in Computer Science (pp. 117–133). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44668-9_9.
8. Gunawardena, S., Tempero, E., & Blincoe, K. (2023). Concerns identified in code review: A fine-grained,
faceted classification. Information and Software Technology, 153, 107054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107054.
9. Alannsary, M. O. (2025). A defect classification framework for AI-based software systems (AI-ODC). arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.17900.
10. Zhao, F., Yang, Y., Liu, H., & Wang, C. (2024). A robust multi-view knowledge transfer-based rough fuzzy
C-means clustering algorithm. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 10, 5331–5358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-024-
01431.
11. Oskoueie, A. G., Samadi, N., Khezri, S., Najafi Moghaddam, A., Babaei, H., Hamini, K., Nojavan, S. F.,
Bouyer, A., & Arasteh, B. (2025). Feature-weighted fuzzy clustering methods: An experimental review. Neurocomputing,
619, 129176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2024.129176.
12. Yin, H., Aryani, A., Petrie, S., Nambissan, A., Astudillo, A., & Cao, S. (2024). A rapid review of clustering
algorithm. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.07389.
13. Black, P., Gondal, I., Bagirov, A., & Moniruzzaman, M. (2021). Malware variant identification using
incremental clustering. Electronics, 10(14), 1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10141628.
14.Jurečková, O., Jureček, M., Stamp, M., Di Troia, F., & Lórenc, R. (2024). Classification and online clustering
of zero-day malware. Journal of Computer Virology and Hacking Techniques, 20, 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11416-024-00513-5.