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.

Comments
Software Assurance: Time to Raise the Bar on Static Analysis
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
KevGreene_Cyber
50%
50%
KevGreene_Cyber,
User Rank: Author
10/7/2014 | 10:09:36 AM
Re: complementary sweet spots
@Sara -- from my experience organizations typically use one tool -- the concept of best of breed has died and people have bought into the concept of UTM (Unified Threat Management).  We've seen this on the network side of the shop with Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet... The same has happened with the AppSec/SwA tools -- all in one.  But that locks organizations into that proprietary solution.  The feedback I got from organizations is that it takes too much time to triage mutiple reports from tools -- or it takes resources to bring in a new tool.  So that becomes a barrier to introducing additional tools into the workflow.  The SWAMP eliminates that barrier and enable the developer to focus on those weaknesses that matters the most. The bigger shops or more mature organizations tend to use multiple tools, but have to glue results from various tools.  I'm sharing witht the community, we have solved that problem and are able to leverage the context from various tools to help dive deeper into weaknesses in code. 
Sara Peters
100%
0%
Sara Peters,
User Rank: Author
10/6/2014 | 4:10:28 PM
complementary sweet spots
As you mention, Kevin, it's better to use multiple tools, instead of just one, because different tools excel at different things. In your experience, do most organizations and developers combine tools like this, or do they too often pick just one?
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
10/2/2014 | 1:43:31 PM
Re: Tool Compilation
Thanks, Kevin. We'll be looking forward to you sharing the insight you get from SWAMP as the project evolves. 
KevGreene_Cyber
50%
50%
KevGreene_Cyber,
User Rank: Author
10/1/2014 | 12:09:19 PM
Re: Tool Compilation
@Marilyn -- we have not determined that yet.  However, there is some data to suggest which tools may work well together depending on language and the program structure of code.  For open-source tools, we can definitely share some insight on that, but commercial tools you are restricted from sharing information based on the EULA --

The SWAMP opened in Feb of 2014, and we are stil buidling the analytics around this notion.  
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
10/1/2014 | 8:59:37 AM
Re: Tool Compilation
Following on Ryan's comment, Kevin: Have you determined through SWAMP (thus far) what is the most popular or most effective tool combo for SA? 
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
9/30/2014 | 2:46:24 PM
Re: Tool Compilation
I'll take a look thanks! Just a quick question, do you specialize in one genre of tool or do you group tools by genres to subscribe to more users? (NetSec tools, InfoSec tools, etc)
KevGreene_Cyber
50%
50%
KevGreene_Cyber,
User Rank: Author
9/30/2014 | 1:16:03 PM
Re: Tool Compilation
@Ryan... Thanks for your comment.  CodeDx bundles open-source tools and allow you to bring in others as well (commerical and open-source) in one GUI.  The goal is to provide a cost-effective solution to help formalize aspects of software assurance in organizations.  You should give it a eval and let us know what you think.  Also, create an account in SWAMP let us know what you think.  
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
9/30/2014 | 1:08:47 PM
Tool Compilation
Good article. It definitely seems to be more often than not the case that a tool alone yields not as verbose data results as tools used in correlation. It takes time and effort to find the precise tools needed and each endeavor requires different data so its hard to foresee what tools are needed.

For tools that are open source, why not have them combined in a GUI or command line fashion in one distribution. Allow functionality to add upon those packages for data correlation and your analysis efficiency should increase ten fold. 


Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
7 SMB Security Tips That Will Keep Your Company Safe
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  10/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: The old using of sock puppets for Shoulder Surfing technique. 
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17513
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
An issue was discovered in Ratpack before 1.7.5. Due to a misuse of the Netty library class DefaultHttpHeaders, there is no validation that headers lack HTTP control characters. Thus, if untrusted data is used to construct HTTP headers with Ratpack, HTTP Response Splitting can occur.
CVE-2019-8216
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure .
CVE-2019-8217
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-8218
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure .
CVE-2019-8219
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .