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. 


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/5/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).