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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Why It’s Insane To Trust Static Analysis
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
KevGreene_Cyber
50%
50%
KevGreene_Cyber,
 User Rank: Author
11/29/2015 | 4:11:11 PM
Re: SAST, DAST, and IAST all important testing technologies
I agree... SAST and DAST are too important to dismiss. We have to find a way to leverage the strength of each, at the same time work to continually evolve and raise the bar for these tools.  
johannacuriel
0%
100%
johannacuriel,
 User Rank: Apprentice
10/1/2015 | 8:02:51 AM
OWASP Benchmark official review at OWASP
I did a review of this project as part of the Project review team at OWASP. It has never been my impression that the OWASP Benchmark project has been promoted within the OWASP community as a 'ready' to use tool but rather as a tool in development stage. It is clear to me that the tool still needs a lot of testing and even so, it will not be able to 'benchmark' all the features of a SAST tool for example, if the tool being benchmarked in not able to produce a complete XML output reports with all its results.

More details about OWASP Benchmark Project review:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B28S4R_cON7JZGtNZVRrMDl3NzQ/view?pli=1

https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/forum/?hl=en#!topic/projects-task-force/h1leFW8e8zE
planetlevel
100%
0%
planetlevel,
 User Rank: Author
9/23/2015 | 12:34:36 PM
Re: What would a benchmark against Coverity show?
In reponse to a few private inquiries I want to make very clear that I think static analysis for many kinds of *quality* issues is fantastic.  FindBugs in particular has an excellent accuracy record for non-security bugs and it has helped me improve my code in the past.
planetlevel
100%
0%
planetlevel,
 User Rank: Author
9/23/2015 | 12:14:57 AM
Re: What would a benchmark against Coverity show?
The OWASP Benchmark Project supports for many different commercial and open source tools, including: 
  • Findbugs
  • HP Fortify
  • PMD
  • IBM AppScan
  • Veracode
  • CheckMarx
  • Synopsys Coverity
  • Parasoft
  • SonarQube

The picture in the article is FindBugs (security) but that's just one example of (pretty poor) static analysis capability.  The Benchmark also looks at many dynamic scanning tools.  The results are fascinating.

And as I mentioned, easily reproduceable.  If you have Coverity, just clone the benchmark project and run Coverity on it.  Then feed the results into the Benchmark scoring tool and get a report on exactly what you want to see.

I appreciate your optimism, but it's amazing what you find out when you actually measure.
Charlie Babcock
50%
50%
Charlie Babcock,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/22/2015 | 9:09:07 PM
What would a benchmark against Coverity show?
Author Jeff Williams uses OWASP benchmark results against FindBugs to disparage the effectiveness of static analsysis of code, and I haven't heard much about FindBugs. I'd be more interested in what a benchmark against Coverity or one of the other more prominent static analysis tools might show. I suspect static analysis has done too much good for too long for it to be dismissed as easily as Willaims does, with his confidence in the brilliance of Contrast Security's interactive application security testing. Might they each excel at different things?
cwysopal
67%
33%
cwysopal,
 User Rank: Apprentice
9/22/2015 | 12:42:47 PM
SAST, DAST, and IAST all important testing technologies

IAST is a great testing technique that has some advantages that SAST and DAST do not have. But there are clearly strengths that SAST and DAST have that don't exist in IAST.  It's not time to throw away your SAST and DAST investment. A mature app sec program combines approaches to maximize strengths an minimize weaknesses.

SAST doesn't require a running system with test data and automated test suites.  This allows SAST to be used earlier in the dev cycle when it is least expensive to fix flaws.  DAST doesn't require modifying the production environment so you don't need find the server the app is running on, get the approval, schedule a change and contact an administrator to modify it. This allows DAST to be used more easily in production. Web apps can be scanned by just knowing the URL of the application. Finding the best way to combine techniqes will give you the best application security.

-Chris



Stop Defending Everything
Kevin Kurzawa, Senior Information Security Auditor,  2/12/2020
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
Architectural Analysis IDs 78 Specific Risks in Machine-Learning Systems
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  2/13/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5531
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-17
Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC C Controller Module and MELIPC Series MI5000 MELSEC-Q Series C Controller Module(Q24DHCCPU-V, Q24DHCCPU-VG User Ethernet port (CH1, CH2): First 5 digits of serial number 21121 or before), MELSEC iQ-R Series C Controller Module / C Intelligent Function Module(R12CCPU-V Ethe...
CVE-2020-7252
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-17
Unquoted service executable path in DXL Broker in McAfee Data eXchange Layer (DXL) Framework 6.0.0 and earlier allows local users to cause a denial of service and malicious file execution via carefully crafted and named executable files.
CVE-2020-9024
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-17
Iteris Vantage Velocity Field Unit 2.3.1 and 2.4.2 devices have world-writable permissions for the /root/cleardata.pl (executed as root by crond) and /root/loadperl.sh (executed as root at boot time) scripts.
CVE-2020-9025
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-17
Iteris Vantage Velocity Field Unit 2.4.2 devices have multiple stored XSS issues in all parameters of the Start Data Viewer feature of the /cgi-bin/loaddata.py script.
CVE-2020-9026
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-17
ELTEX NTP-RG-1402G 1v10 3.25.3.32 devices allow OS command injection via the PING field of the resource ping.cmd. The NTP-2 device is also affected.