Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Cloud

9/28/2016
05:20 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Microsoft Launches Cloud-Based Fuzzing

'Project Springfield' debuts at Ignite conference.

Microsoft this week at its Ignite 2016 conference in Atlanta released details of a new cloud-based service for rooting out software bugs.

The so-called Project Springfield tool is a fuzzing service that the software giant has been testing with some customers as well as in-house. Fuzzing is a form of testing that sends random inputs to software programs to spot security holes.

Patrice Godefroid, a principal researcher at Microsoft and chief scientist of Project Springfield, said the types of flaws the service spots are ones attackers use most. "The more we can find those bugs ourselves, the more we can fix them before we ship the software," Godrefroid is quoted in a Microsoft post announcing the service.

The Microsoft research team noted in the post that when a development team can find a potentially serious bug before software is released, it saves a developer the costly effort of having to release a patch. This holds true for Microsoft products as well as companies with their own software development teams, they said.

Just when Project Springfield will be widely available is unclear. Microsoft has not announced details on that just yet. “At Ignite, Project Springfield will be available to customers selected by Microsoft from applications to our preview web site," Microsoft said in response to a query about when the service would be available.

Oliver Rochford, research director for security management solutions and services at Gartner, says it's too early to tell just how different Microsoft's service is compared with other fuzzing offerings. "Fuzzing has been known and used for many years," Rochford says. "In its most simple form, it revolves around bruteforcing an application's data inputs with lots of different requests and random data to force it to crash to identify bugs. Commercial products already such as Veracode or HP Fortify also utilize fuzzing methods to analyze software." 

Fuzzing is just on level of vulnerability testing, notes Josh Zelonis, a senior analyst at Forrester Research. Companies then still have to go through each exception to find out why the application failed, and if it did so in an exploitable manner.

"Unfortunately, without someone highly skilled to go through the exceptions discovered by the fuzzer, the development shop just has an unprioritized list of bugs with no criticality attached to them from which to make a business decision on whether to remediate," Zelonis says.

Zelonis adds that while he’s sure there are organizations that will take advantage of Project Springfield, it's likely for more mature development shops.

Microsoft said in its post that many companies can’t afford or can’t find the staff they need to do fuzz testing. Project Springfield offers an automated way to fuzz code, especially for companies that may not have a security engineer or have even heard of fuzz testing.   

Related Content:

Steve Zurier has more than 30 years of journalism and publishing experience and has covered networking, security, and IT as a writer and editor since 1992. Steve is based in Columbia, Md. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
9/30/2016 | 9:54:05 AM
"Unfortunately"
This is akin to SIEM and IDS alerts. If no ones reviewing them what value do they truly have?
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-20001
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.2.0, BinaryHeap is not panic-safe. The binary heap is left in an inconsistent state when the comparison of generic elements inside sift_up or sift_down_range panics. This bug leads to a drop of zeroed memory as an arbitrary type, which can result in a memory ...
CVE-2020-36317
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, String::retain() function has a panic safety problem. It allows creation of a non-UTF-8 Rust string when the provided closure panics. This bug could result in a memory safety violation when other string APIs assume that UTF-8 encoding is used on the sam...
CVE-2020-36318
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, VecDeque::make_contiguous has a bug that pops the same element more than once under certain condition. This bug could result in a use-after-free or double free.
CVE-2021-28875
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.0, read_to_end() does not validate the return value from Read in an unsafe context. This bug could lead to a buffer overflow.
CVE-2021-28876
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.52.0, the Zip implementation has a panic safety issue. It calls __iterator_get_unchecked() more than once for the same index when the underlying iterator panics (in certain conditions). This bug could lead to a memory safety violation due to an unmet safety r...