IP Library Granted Patent US 12,705,367
Granted Patent B2
US 12,705,367 · App. 19/452,522 · Granted Aug 11, 2026

Creating a patched artifact by back-propagating a fix using an automated process

Inventors: Henrik Plate (Valbonne, FR); Sebastian Cai (Palo Alto, CA); Dimitrios Styliadis (San Jose, CA); Alexandre Wilhelm (Kilauea, HI)
Assignee: Endor Labs Inc
G06F21/577G06F21/6218G06F21/552G06F21/565G06F21/70
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,705,367
App. No.
19/452,522
Filed
Jan 19, 2026
Granted
Aug 11, 2026
Kind
B2
Art Unit
2497
USPC
726/25
Abstract

In some implementations, a server determines that project code in a development system references an older version of a component in a third-party library and that a newer version of the component has a fix commit that addresses a vulnerability in the older version. The system determines a subset of code changes associated with the fix commit that addresses the vulnerability. The system submits, via a network, a pull request to create a branch in a developer platform. In the branch: a patch is created based on the subset of the code changes associated with the fix commit, the patch is applied to the older version of the component to create a patched component, and after the patch is successfully validated in the branch, the patched component and information associated with the patch is uploaded to a registry to enable a software developer to download and use the patched component.

Claims (53)

1 . A computer-implemented method comprising:

determining, by one or more processors, that project code in a development system references an older version of a component in a third-party library;

determining, by the one or more processors, that a newer version of the component in the third-party library has a fix commit that addresses a vulnerability in the older version of the component;

determining, by the one or more processors, a subset of code changes associated with the fix commit that addresses the vulnerability in the older version of the component;

submitting, by the one or more processors and via a communication network, a pull request to create a branch in a developer platform;

creating, in the branch and by the one or more processors, a patch based on the subset of the code changes associated with the fix commit;

applying, in the branch and by the one or more processors, the patch to the older version of the component to create a patched component;

validating, in the branch and by the one or more processors, the patch;

after successfully validating the patch in the branch, uploading, by the one or more processors, the patched component and information associated with the patch to a registry to enable a software developer to download and use the patched component; and providing sufficient details in the information associated with the patch to enable the software developer to reproducibly build the patch.

2 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein validating the patch by the one or more processors comprises: executing a set of test cases on a first build that includes the older version of the component to create first test results; determining that the first test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the older version of the component; executing the set of test cases on a second build that includes the patched component to create second test results; and determining that the second test results indicate that the set of test cases did not exploit the vulnerability in the patched component.

3 . The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , further comprising: initiating a process to create the first build using a build file comprising build rules and build options; based on the process to create the first build failing, modifying the build file to create a modified build file; and re-initiating the process to create the first build using the modified build file.

4 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein validating the patch comprises: executing a set of test cases on a first build that includes the older version of the component to create first test results; determining that the first test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the older version of the component; executing the set of test cases on a second build that includes the patched component to create second test results; determining that the second test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the patched component; modifying the patch to create a modified patch; executing the set of test cases on a third build that includes the modified patch to create third test results; and determining that the third test results indicate that the set of test cases did not exploit the vulnerability in the modified patch.

5 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising: performing change impact analysis on the patched component; and determining, based on the change impact analysis, that the patched component does not introduce a breaking change.

6 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the information associated with the patch comprises: information identifying the older version of the component in the third-party library; information identifying the vulnerability; information identifying files used; information related to a build file; information related to build options; one or more configuration details; or any combination thereof.

7 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising: performing change impact analysis on the patched component; determining, based on the change impact analysis, that the patch introduces a breaking change; modifying the patch to create a modified patch; and performing the change impact analysis using the modified patch.

8 . A server comprising:

one or more processors; and

one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining that project code in a development system references an older version of a component in a third-party library;

determining that a newer version of the component in the third-party library has a fix commit that addresses a vulnerability in the older version of the component;

determining a subset of code changes associated with the fix commit that addresses the vulnerability in the older version of the component;

submitting, via a communication network, a pull request to create a branch in a developer platform;

creating, in the branch, a patch based on the subset of the code changes associated with the fix commit;

applying, in the branch, the patch to the older version of the component to create a patched component;

validating, in the branch, the patch;

after successfully validating the patch in the branch, uploading the patched component and information associated with the patch to a registry to enable a software developer to download and use the patched component; and

providing sufficient details in the information associated with the patch to enable the software developer to reproducibly build the patch.

9 . The server of claim 8 , wherein validating the patch comprises: executing a set of test cases on a first build that includes the older version of the component to create first test results; determining that the first test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the older version of the component; executing the set of test cases on a second build that includes the patched component to create second test results; and determining that the second test results indicate that the set of test cases did not exploit the vulnerability in the patched component.

10 . The server of claim 9 , the operations further comprising: initiating a process to create the first build using a build file comprising build rules and build options; based on the process to create the first build failing, modifying the build file to create a modified build file; and re-initiating the process to create the first build using the modified build file.

11 . The server of claim 8 , the operations further comprising:

performing change impact analysis on the patched component; and

determining, based on the change impact analysis, that the patched component does not introduce a breaking change.

12 . The server of claim 8 , wherein validating the patch comprises: executing a set of test cases on a first build that includes the older version of the component to create first test results; determining that the first test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the older version of the component; executing the set of test cases on a second build that includes the patched component to create second test results; determining that the second test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the patched component; modifying the patch to create a modified patch; executing the set of test cases on a third build that includes the modified patch to create third test results; and determining that the third test results indicate that the set of test cases did not exploit the vulnerability in the modified patch.

13 . The server of claim 8 , wherein the information associated with the patch comprises: information identifying the older version of the component in the third-party library; information identifying the vulnerability; information identifying files used; information related to a build file; information related to one or more build options; one or more configuration details; or any combination thereof.

14 . The server of claim 8 , the operations further comprising: performing change impact analysis on the patched component; determining, based on the change impact analysis, that the patch introduces a breaking change; modifying the patch to create a modified patch; and performing the change impact analysis using the modified patch.

15 . One or more non-transitory computer readable media capable of storing instructions executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

determining that project code in a development system references an older version of a component in a third-party library;

determining that a newer version of the component in the third-party library has a fix commit that addresses a vulnerability in the older version of the component;

determining a subset of code changes associated with the fix commit that addresses the vulnerability in the older version of the component;

submitting, via a communication network, a pull request to create a branch in a developer platform;

creating, in the branch, a patch based on the subset of the code changes associated with the fix commit;

applying, in the branch, the patch to the older version of the component to create a patched component;

validating, in the branch, the patch;

after successfully validating the patch in the branch, uploading the patched component and information associated with the patch to a registry to enable a software developer to download and use the patched component; and

providing sufficient details in the information associated with the patch to enable the software developer to reproducibly build the patch.

16 . The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15 , wherein validating the patch comprises: executing a set of test cases on a first build that includes the older version of the component to create first test results; determining that the first test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the older version of the component; executing the set of test cases on a second build that includes the patched component to create second test results; and determining that the second test results indicate that the set of test cases did not exploit the vulnerability in the patched component.

17 . The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 16 , the operations further comprising: initiating a process to create the first build using a build file comprising build rules and build options; based on the process to create the first build failing, modifying the build file to create a modified build file; and re-initiating the process to create the first build using the modified build file.

18 . The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15 , wherein validating the patch comprises: executing a set of test cases on a first build that includes the older version of the component to create first test results; determining that the first test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the older version of the component; executing the set of test cases on a second build that includes the patched component to create second test results; determining that the second test results indicate that the set of test cases exploited the vulnerability in the patched component; modifying the patch to create a modified patch; executing the set of test cases on a third build that includes the modified patch to create third test results; and determining that the third test results indicate that the set of test cases did not exploit the vulnerability in the modified patch.

19 . The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15 , the operations further comprising:

performing a change impact analysis on the patched component;

determining, based on the change impact analysis, whether the patch introduces a breaking change; and

in response to determining that the patch introduces a breaking change, modifying the patch to create a modified patch and performing the change impact analysis using the modified patch.

20 . The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15 , wherein the information associated with the patch comprises: information identifying the older version of the component in the third-party library; information identifying the vulnerability; information identifying files used; information related to a build file; information related to build options; one or more configuration details; or any combination thereof.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 30, 2026
From: PLATE, HENRIK; CAI, SEBASTIAN; STYLIADIS, DIMITRIOS; WILHELM, ALEXANDRE
To: ENDOR LABS INC
Reel/Frame 073628/0096 →
Continuity (10)
Continuation 19270079 · Jul 15, 2025
Continuation 19020659 · Jan 14, 2025
Continuation 18951189 · Nov 18, 2024
Continuation 18740976 · Jun 12, 2024
Provisional Application 63680135 · Aug 7, 2024
Provisional Application 63552793 · Feb 13, 2024
Provisional Application 63472561 · Jun 12, 2023
Provisional Application 63472562 · Jun 12, 2023
Provisional Application 63472557 · Jun 12, 2023
Related Publication 20260141083A1 · May 21, 2026
References Cited (35)
US 9064134B1 · Agarwal · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 10108975B1 · Benner et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10379995B1 · Walters et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10754643B2 · Arquero et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 11204690B1 · Hoberman · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11544050B1 · Ankit · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20050055565A1 · Fournet et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060282479A1 · Johnson et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060282480A1 · Johnson et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060288054A1 · Johnson et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060288055A1 · Johnson et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20100153908A1 · Sarkar et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110055153A1 · Hashimoto et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110078674A1 · Ershov · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20130083030A1 · Fukuda et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140201573A1 · Huang · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20140289697A1 · Wenda et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20160259636A1 · Plate et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20180239898A1 · Haerterich · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180314622A1 · Lowe et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190272378A1 · Hirvimies et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20210182391A1 · Plate · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210281597A1 · Guiroux et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220222351A1 · Levin et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220342680A1 · Darke et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230061121A1 · Tosevska et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20240169069A1 · Panicker · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240241963A1 · Wareus · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240385823A1 · Hoole · 2024 [cited by examiner]
CN 104321782 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
CN 113377431A · 2021 [cited by examiner]
CN 118133284A · 2024 [cited by applicant]
Aline Brito et al., “APIDiff: Detecting API breaking changes,” 2018 [retrieved Jun. 22, 2025], 2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, pp. 507-511, downloaded from :htt… [cited by applicant]
Lina Ochoa et al., “BreakBot: Analyzing the Impact of Breaking Changes to Assist Library Evolution,” 2022 [retrieved Jun. 25, 2025], Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: New… [cited by applicant]
Nikolaos Tsantalis et al., “Refactoring Miner 2.0,” 2022 [retrieved Jun. 27, 2025], IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 48, Issue 3, pp. 930-950, downloaded from :https://ieeexplore.ieee.org. (Year: 2022) 21… [cited by applicant]