Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2011 IEEE 35th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops 2011
DOI: 10.1109/compsacw.2011.26
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Test-Driving Static Analysis Tools in Search of C Code Vulnerabilities

Abstract: Abstract-Recently, a number of tools for automated code scanning came in the limelight. Due to the significant costs associated with incorporating such a tool in the software lifecycle, it is important to know what defects are detected and how accurate and efficient the analysis is. We focus specifically on popular static analysis tools for C code defects. Existing benchmarks include the actual defects in open source programs, but they lack systematic coverage of possible code defects and the coding complexiti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For over 35 years, attackers have been able to hijack the control flow of programs written in languages such as C and C++, which remain two of the most used programming languages today, especially in embedded environments where performance is critical. Past and recent research efforts to address this problem include fuzzing-based techniques [26,22,16,9,17], program transformation and compiler-based techniques [15,8,14] and static techniques [31,19,12,18,5], among others.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For over 35 years, attackers have been able to hijack the control flow of programs written in languages such as C and C++, which remain two of the most used programming languages today, especially in embedded environments where performance is critical. Past and recent research efforts to address this problem include fuzzing-based techniques [26,22,16,9,17], program transformation and compiler-based techniques [15,8,14] and static techniques [31,19,12,18,5], among others.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note, the 'standard way' here is to avoid respective effects beforehand using elaborate test, debug, and memory inspection tools when developing or verifying embedded software, respectively, cf. [1]. Nevertheless, such defects often find their way unnoticed to the target systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…FindBugs detectors for Web application vulnerabilities do not guarantee the absence of false negatives and they often generate false positives, as it happens with all static analyses [6]. However, the bug detectors for Web application vulnerabilities do not need code annotations, as is the case with many other static analyses.…”
Section: Static Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dynamic analyses aim to prevent input injection attacks at runtime, thus avoiding the imprecision of static analyses due to their sensitivity characteristics [6]. However, most dynamic analyses do not take into account input sanitization operations that can be either safe or unsafe.…”
Section: Dynamic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%