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
What Drives A Developer To Use Security Tools -- Or Not
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Erik Klein
Erik Klein,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/24/2015 | 12:58:29 PM
What if the developer didn't need to USE a tool?
This article reports on the factors that influence a software developer to proactively stop the process of developing software, perform a context-switch, and execute a security tool ... steps that do not contribute to the functional deliverables of the SDLC.

Of course there would be pushback ... unless the developer is compensated for secure code.

But what if accurate application security vulnerabilities could be identified before code check-in without any of the steps mentioned above?  What if the applciation security vulnerabilities were identified simply from the FUNCTIONAL development and usage of the system?

As a former developer (and current AppSec tooling guy), I am always looking for ways to invisibly inject security into the SDLC ... ways that do NOT require a new line item in a project plan, an extra step in the coding / development process, or a self-imposed "wait state" in order to get application security results ... and, ideally, to have appication security vulnerabilities identified continuously and in real-time as an invisible and natural by-product of the process of building and testing software in an SDLC without regard for "Security Testing".

I have found that passive IAST products are capable of achieving this goal and not only enabling developers to identify and fix their vulnerabilities before the code leaves their desktop, but actually proactively reaching out to them to show the exact line of code that is vulnerable ... ALL WITHOUT A SCAN or extra step ... all in real-time from performing the very act that all developers do before checking in code ... FUNCTIONAL sanity/smoke testing.

Contrast Security provides such a solution.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/26/2015 | 4:07:40 PM
Re: Monkey see Monkey do
Comfortable medium is somewhere we keep the balance of CIA: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability. If you push one side more than others it eventually causes other problems. Keep in mind that there will never be a "Secure" system.
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
8/26/2015 | 4:07:25 PM
Re: Security makes it complex
Wow, @Dr. T. That's a shame. That says a lot about the problem. No one expects a dev to write perfect code--not possible--but if they had more support in writing more secure and better code, maybe they would find it challenging yet realistic.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/26/2015 | 4:05:12 PM
Re: Monkey see Monkey do
Psychological perspective security may not even really matter, we are all concern about privacy in most cases.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/26/2015 | 4:03:16 PM
Re: User-Experience
Agree. User experience may be important factor why some of our codes are not as secure as they could be.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/26/2015 | 4:01:57 PM
Re: Monkey see Monkey do
Money tests can really catch lost for security vulnerabilities that standard set of test action items.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/26/2015 | 3:59:46 PM
Security makes it complex

I know some of my developer friends stop doing development since they started thinking that it is getting harder and harder to write a code in secure way, so they just give up. :--))
RyanSepe
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
8/25/2015 | 11:47:22 AM
Re: Monkey see Monkey do
Very interesting. Looking at it from a psychological perspective it would seem that developers are hardcoded for functionality while security folk are hardwired towards safeguards. How do we reach a comfortable medium?
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
8/25/2015 | 9:12:23 AM
Re: Monkey see Monkey do
I thought it was interesting to look at the issue from a psychological perspective. That may well be a key element in bridging the gap between the dev and security worlds.
RyanSepe
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
8/25/2015 | 9:08:00 AM
User-Experience
Also, user experience is another event that needs to be understood here. If the developer has a good experience with the tool they are more likely to use it in the future than if they had a bad experience. This principle is universal.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


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
Practical Network Security Approaches for a Multicloud, Hybrid IT World
The report covers areas enterprises should focus on for their multicloud/hybrid cloud security strategy: -increase visibility over the environment -learning cloud-specific skills -relying on established security frameworks -re-architecting the network
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-30333
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09
RARLAB UnRAR before 6.12 on Linux and UNIX allows directory traversal to write to files during an extract (aka unpack) operation, as demonstrated by creating a ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file. NOTE: WinRAR and Android RAR are unaffected.
CVE-2022-23066
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09
In Solana rBPF versions 0.2.26 and 0.2.27 are affected by Incorrect Calculation which is caused by improper implementation of sdiv instruction. This can lead to the wrong execution path, resulting in huge loss in specific cases. For example, the result of a sdiv instruction may decide whether to tra...
CVE-2022-28463
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08
ImageMagick 7.1.0-27 is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow.
CVE-2022-28470
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08
marcador package in PyPI 0.1 through 0.13 included a code-execution backdoor.
CVE-2022-1620
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08
NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 in GitHub repository vim/vim prior to 8.2.4901. NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted input.