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
Why Its Insane To Trust Static Analysis
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
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

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.  
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?
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.
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.
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


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
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-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.