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
Risky Business: Why Monitoring Vulnerability Data Is Never Enough
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
dferguson_usa
dferguson_usa,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/20/2015 | 8:14:04 PM
Static analysis vs. vulnerable components database
Veracode offers a static analysis solution similar to Coverity, but it works on the compiled code and not the source code.  Anyway I'm not sure doing static analysis on your 3rd party libraries/open source components is practical.  You may end up with a much bigger project than you want.  And these tools can have false negatives like already mentioned.  Probably more effective is to use an automated solution that can figure out what components are present in your software and then checks a database to flag known vulnerable components.  OWASP has a tool called Dependency Check that is designed to do this, and there's no cost.  I haven't used it myself yet though.
xmarksthespot
xmarksthespot,
User Rank: Strategist
3/20/2015 | 4:25:34 AM
Re: What abput Coverity?
The way I learned so much in penetration testing and web development, is from open source. I use Kali and Ubuntu along with the multitude of open source within it. I *love* it!

I don't see reliable evidence that closed source is more vulnerable than open source, or vice versa. In my mind it would have to be examined on a case by case basis on the technologies available. There are many factors involved in analyzing the security level of a package. You see critical vulnerabilities reported in both types of software, frequently. That's not the complete picture in terms of the security. Just because a hole isn't found doesn't mean there isn't a hole there.

Some open source software have strong communities which react quickly when vulnerabilities are reported. Others are slower. Same goes for commercial software. Personally, I'd be concerned about fast patches get applied to reported vulnerabilities If reported vulnerabilities are not patched in a timely manner, I would be suspect of the product, open or closed source.

It seems prudent that a large corporation relying heavily on a particular project would give it a look. I'm sure that in many cases they are already doing that. Also, I think it would be most important to perform periodic and structured security audits on open source security mechanisms such as OpenSSL.
bill@blackduck
[email protected],
User Rank: Author
3/19/2015 | 9:31:16 PM
Re: What abput Coverity?

I agree, running static code analysis tools such as Coverity are certainly best practice for finding defects and vulnerabilities in both open source and proprietary code. I believe that Coverity even offers a free service for open source projects to scan their code. Unfortunately, not all open source projects do this. In addition, not all vulnerabilities are caught by these tools — many are discovered by security researchers analyzing the code directly. Thus, it still makes sense to have an accounting of what open source software you are using and what known vulnerabilities have been reported against those projects and versions.

Charlie Babcock
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Ninja
3/19/2015 | 7:17:03 PM
What abput Coverity?
i don't know what it costs but Coverity will perform a static check on all code sent to it for a fee. It looks for security vulnerability and poor coding practices and gives you a report. This may not be what's needed to maintain your open source code but it seems to me some kind of periodic check by an outside third party would be a good way to go.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-41340
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-24
The secp256k1-js package before 1.1.0 for Node.js implements ECDSA without required r and s validation, leading to signature forgery.
CVE-2022-23463
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-24
Nepxion Discovery is a solution for Spring Cloud. Discover is vulnerable to SpEL Injection in discovery-commons. DiscoveryExpressionResolver’s eval method is evaluating expression with a StandardEvaluationContext, allowing the expression to reach and interact with Java classes suc...
CVE-2022-23464
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-24
Nepxion Discovery is a solution for Spring Cloud. Discovery is vulnerable to a potential Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). RouterResourceImpl uses RestTemplate’s getForEntity to retrieve the contents of a URL containing user-controlled input, potentially resulting in Information...
CVE-2022-23461
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-24
Jodit Editor is a WYSIWYG editor written in pure TypeScript without the use of additional libraries. Jodit Editor is vulnerable to XSS attacks when pasting specially constructed input. This issue has not been fully patched. There are no known workarounds.
CVE-2022-36025
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-24
Besu is a Java-based Ethereum client. In versions newer than 22.1.3 and prior to 22.7.1, Besu is subject to an Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types. An error in 32 bit signed and unsigned types in the calculation of available gas in the CALL operations (including DELEGATECALL) results in incor...