Managing Post-Development Fault Removal

Schmeelk, Suzanna; Mills, Bill; Noonan, Robert E.

doi:10.1109/itng.2009.249

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Schmeelk et al [47] reported a generalized prioritization schema based on fault: system impact, location, scope and design. Removing and eliminating faults based on a case-specific general schema will help reduce development costs and post-deployment patching.…”

Section: Managing Fault Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Standardizing Source Code Security Audits

Schmeelk

Mills²,

Hedstrom³

2012

IJSEA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Managing Fault Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…during 2008 [47] found the most prevalent fault category to be null pointer dereferences, totalling 23.8% of all true faults found. Resource leaks totalled 18.3% of all true faults found.…”

Section: Yahoo! Source Code Analysis Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardizing Source Code Security Audits

Schmeelk

Mills²,

Hedstrom³

2012

IJSEA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies (e.g. [43,52]) have prioritized faults found through analysis. Benchmarks that address severity levels (including buffer overflow levels [23] and public access [9], among others) improve tool characterization.…”

Section: Representative Faultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a unified fault-detection benchmark

Schmeelk¹

2010

Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT Workshop on Program Analysis for Software Tools and Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing a unified benchmark to compare and contrast ways to detect faults is an important aspect for the future of fault detection. In this paper, we explore benchmarks used in the evaluation of popular static analysis tools in order to raise awareness for the community to work towards a unified benchmark. Additionally, we introduce an initial design for a bottom-up repository to integrate benchmarks directly with the web interface of the accessible fault taxonomy, the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE). The repository would be dynamically linked directly into the evolving CWE. It would reflect new faults, new fault attributes, new test cases and test case attributes. The repository could be dynamically used to aggregate, compare, improve and store information about benchmarks.

show abstract

“…Null pointer dereferences are among (if not) the predominate Java programming fault(s) [1], [2]. The null object value has been called the ``billion dollar mistake [3]" by the inventor as subsequent uncaught null pointer dereferences can cause disastrous system failure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static checking java with the Java Static Checker

Schmeelk

2010

2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces a new open source static analysis tool, the Java Static Checker (JSC). Traditional static analysis tools examine Java code for fault instances considering specific code patterns. JSC is novel in that it examines Java code for potential fault classes based on propagating values and examining fault classes. In this paper, we use the tool to examine programs for potential null pointer dereferences. We empirically evaluate JSC and two other open source tools, Jlint and FindBugs, on a multiple programs. The results show that JSC finds more null pointer dereferences than the other tools.

show abstract

Managing Post-Development Fault Removal

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Standardizing Source Code Security Audits

Standardizing Source Code Security Audits

Towards a unified fault-detection benchmark

Static checking java with the Java Static Checker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About