DOCSLIB.ORG

The Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 the 12 Providers That Matter Most and How They Stack up by Sandy Carielli January 11, 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 the 12 Providers That Matter Most and How They Stack up by Sandy Carielli January 11, 2021 LICENSED FOR INDIVIDUAL USE ONLY The Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 The 12 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up by Sandy Carielli January 11, 2021 Why Read This Report Key Takeaways In our 28-criterion evaluation of static application Veracode, Synopsys, Checkmarx, And Micro security testing (SAST) providers, we identified Focus Lead The Pack the 12 most significant ones — CAST, Forrester’s research uncovered a market in Checkmarx, GitHub, GitLab, HCL Software, Micro which Veracode, Synopsys, Checkmarx, and Focus, Parasoft, Perforce Software, SonarSource, Micro Focus are Leaders; HCL Software and Synopsys, Veracode, and WhiteHat Security — CAST are Strong Performers; GitHub, Parasoft, and researched, analyzed, and scored them. This GitLab, Perforce Software, and SonarSource report shows how each provider measures up are Contenders; and WhiteHat Security is a and helps security and risk professionals select Challenger. the right one for their needs. Developer Enablement, New Architecture Support, And Accuracy Are Key Differentiators As development speeds continue to increase and teams embrace new development methodologies, SAST solutions that build security into the software development lifecycle (SDLC), regardless of how and where the application is built, will lead the pack. Vendors that offer deep integration with the CI/CD pipeline; quickly expand to protect new architectures like containers, APIs, and infrastructure-as-code (IaC); and continuously improve on performance and accuracy, position themselves to delight both security and developer stakeholders. This PDF is only licensed for individual use when downloaded from forrester.com or reprints.forrester.com. All other distribution prohibited. FORRESTER.COM FOR SECURITY & RISK PROFESSIONALS The Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 The 12 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up by Sandy Carielli with Amy DeMartine, Melissa Bongarzone, and Christine Turley January 11, 2021 Table Of Contents Related Research Documents 2 Next Generation SAST Solutions Focus On Build A Developer Security Champions Program Developer Enablement The Forrester Tech Tide™: Application Security, 2 Evaluation Summary Q4 2020 4 Vendor Offerings Now Tech: Static Application Security Testing, Q3 2020 5 Vendor Profiles Leaders Strong Performers Share reports with colleagues. Contenders Enhance your membership with Challengers Research Share. 11 Evaluation Overview Vendor Inclusion Criteria 12 Supplemental Material Forrester Research, Inc., 60 Acorn Park Drive, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA +1 617-613-6000 | Fax: +1 617-613-5000 | forrester.com © 2021 Forrester Research, Inc. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. Forrester®, Technographics®, Forrester Wave, TechRadar, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies. Unauthorized copying or distributing is a violation of copyright law. [email protected] or +1 866-367-7378 FOR SECURITY & RISK PROFESSIONALS January 11, 2021 The Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 The 12 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up Next Generation SAST Solutions Focus On Developer Enablement Static application security testing (SAST) tools were initially built for security pros and neglected the needs of developers. As a result, developers were frustrated by false positives, lack of application context, and being forced out of their day-to-day workflows — and that frustration and friction hindered adoption. Happily, SAST vendors have shifted their thinking to include the developer as a key stakeholder in the application security process. Web application attacks were the top cause of external breaches in 2020, and SAST remains a critical tool to address vulnerabilities in proprietary code — as long as it continues to align with developer workflows and helps security pros prioritize and address application security weaknesses early in the SDLC.1 As a result of these trends, SAST customers should look for providers that: • Embrace the developer persona. SAST solutions must build into the developer experience, allowing developers to work efficiently in the tools that they already know. Look for SAST solutions that overlay the CI/CD pipeline through out-of-the-box-integrations with popular IDEs, build tools, and code repositories. In addition, seek solutions that provide actionable remediation guidance, with code samples and interactive training reachable through the developer’s toolset. • Go beyond the traditional definition of code. Firms don’t only build applications with traditional languages like C++ and Java or newer languages like Swift and Kotlin. APIs have become a common application building block, citizen developers have emerged to build apps using low-code platforms, and developers are using infrastructure-as-code (IaC) to define cloud configurations. As your firm’s definition of code expands, and as developers come from outside the traditional development organization, look for SAST tools that will scan for vulnerabilities in these new types of “code.” • Deliver accurate results quickly. Even as SAST has advanced with new features, the basic requirements of low false positives and short scan times remain. A number of customers still list accuracy and performance as challenges. Go beyond asking about false positive rates and performance metrics — ask what tuning is required out of the box and how to optimize scanning performance given your applications’ structure and architecture. Evaluation Summary The Forrester Wave™ evaluation highlights Leaders, Strong Performers, Contenders, and Challengers. It’s an assessment of the top vendors in the market and does not represent the entire vendor landscape. You’ll find more information about this market in our “Now Tech: Static Application Security Testing, Q3 2020” and “The Forrester Tech Tide™: Application Security, Q4 2020.” We intend this evaluation to be a starting point only and encourage clients to view product evaluations and adapt criteria weightings using the Excel-based vendor comparison tool (see Figure 1 and see Figure 2). Click the link at the beginning of this report on Forrester.com to download the tool. © 2021 Forrester Research, Inc. Unauthorized copying or distributing is a violation of copyright law. 2 [email protected] or +1 866-367-7378 FOR SECURITY & RISK PROFESSIONALS January 11, 2021 The Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 The 12 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up FIGURE 1 Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 Static Application Security Testing Q1 2021 Strong Challengers Contenders Performers Leaders Stronger current offering Veracode Synopsys Micro Focus Parasoft Checkmarx CAST HCL Software SonarSource WhiteHat Security Perforce Software GitHub GitLab Weaker current offering Weaker strategy Stronger strategy Market presence © 2021 Forrester Research, Inc. Unauthorized copying or distributing is a violation of copyright law. 3 [email protected] or +1 866-367-7378 FOR SECURITY & RISK PROFESSIONALS January 11, 2021 The Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing, Q1 2021 The 12 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up FIGURE 2 Forrester Wave™: Static Application Security Testing Scorecard, Q1 2021 e e s ce Softwar ester’ o Focus eracode Forr weighting CAST CheckmarxGitHub GitLab HCL SoftwarMicr ParasoftPerfor SonarSouSynopsysrce V WhiteHaSecurityt Current offering 50% 2.78 3.36 1.41 1.32 2.75 3.30 3.22 2.20 2.30 3.74 3.65 2.25 Accuracy 20% 2.40 2.40 1.00 1.00 2.60 4.40 3.40 2.00 2.00 3.60 4.20 3.00 Remediation guidance 10% 3.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 and education Breadth of coverage 15% 3.00 4.20 0.80 2.60 4.20 3.00 0.80 0.80 1.80 3.00 4.60 1.00 Reporting 15% 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 Rule management 15% 4.60 4.00 2.70 1.00 4.00 3.80 3.80 2.80 2.80 3.80 1.80 0.50 Software development 25% 1.65 3.40 0.95 1.30 2.40 2.60 4.00 2.25 2.65 4.20 3.00 2.70 lifecycle integration Strategy 50% 2.65 4.54 3.70 3.30 3.90 3.81 1.80 2.40 1.81 4.21 4.40 1.11 Product vision 20% 3.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 Execution roadmap 15% 3.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 0.00 Market approach 25% 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 Planned enhancements 25% 5.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Performance 15% 0.65 1.95 5.00 5.00 3.00 2.40 1.00 2.30 3.70 1.70 1.00 1.70 Market presence 0% 2.02 3.81 1.00 3.68 2.79 3.00 2.42 2.21 4.19 3.81 4.02 1.00 Install base 70% 1.60 3.30 1.00 4.40 2.70 3.00 2.60 2.30 4.70 3.30 3.60 1.00 Revenue 30% 3.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 All scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong). Vendor Offerings Forrester included 12 vendors in this assessment: CAST, Checkmarx, GitHub, GitLab, HCL Software, Micro Focus, Parasoft, Perforce Software, SonarSource, Synopsys, Veracode, and WhiteHat Security (see Figure 3). © 2021 Forrester Research, Inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Write Your Own Rules and Enforce Them Continuously
    Ultimate Architecture Enforcement Write Your Own Rules and Enforce Them Continuously SATURN May 2017 Paulo Merson Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts Agenda Architecture conformance Custom checks lab Sonarqube Custom checks at TCU Lessons learned 2 Exercise 0 – setup Open www.dontpad.com/saturn17 Follow the steps for “Exercise 0” Pre-requisites for all exercises: • JDK 1.7+ • Java IDE of your choice • maven 3 Consequences of lack of conformance Lower maintainability, mainly because of undesired dependencies • Code becomes brittle, hard to understand and change Possible negative effect • on reliability, portability, performance, interoperability, security, and other qualities • caused by deviation from design decisions that addressed these quality requirements 4 Factors that influence architecture conformance How effective the architecture documentation is Turnover among developers Haste to fix bugs or implement features Size of the system Distributed teams (outsourcing, offshoring) Accountability for violating design constraints 5 How to avoid code and architecture disparity? 1) Communicate the architecture to developers • Create multiple views • Structural diagrams + behavior diagrams • Capture rationale Not the focus of this tutorial 6 How to avoid code and architecture disparity? 2) Automate architecture conformance analysis • Often done with static analysis tools 7 Built-in checks and custom checks Static analysis tools come with many built-in checks • They are useful to spot bugs and improve your overall code quality • But they’re
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Study of Vulnerability Scanning Tools for Javascript Work in Progress
    Empirical Study of Vulnerability Scanning Tools for JavaScript Work In Progress Tiago Brito, Nuno Santos, José Fragoso INESC-ID Lisbon 2020 Tiago Brito, GSD Meeting - 30/07/2020 Purpose of this WIP presentation ● Current work is to be submitted this year ● Goal: gather feedback on work so far ● Focus on presenting the approach and preliminary results Tiago Brito, GSD Meeting - 30/07/2020 2 Motivation ● JavaScript is hugely popular for web development ○ For both client and server-side (NodeJS) development ● There are many critical vulnerabilities reported for software developed using NodeJS ○ Remote Code Executions (Staicu NDSS’18) ○ Denial of Service (Staicu Sec’18) ○ Small number of packages, big impact (Zimmermann Sec’19) ● Developers need tools to help them detect problems ○ They are pressured to focus on delivering features Tiago Brito, GSD Meeting - 30/07/2020 3 Problem Previous work focused on: ● Tools for vulnerability analysis in Java or PHP code (e.g. Alhuzali Sec’18) ● Studying very specific vulnerabilities in Server-side JavaScript ○ ReDos, Command Injections (Staicu NDSS’18 and Staicu Sec’18) ● Studying vulnerability reports on the NodeJS ecosystem (Zimmermann Sec’19) So, it is still unknown which, and how many, of these tools can effectively detect vulnerabilities in modern JavaScript. Tiago Brito, GSD Meeting - 30/07/2020 4 Goal Our goal is to assess the effectiveness of state-of-the-art vulnerability detection tools for JavaScript code by performing a comprehensive empirical study. Tiago Brito, GSD Meeting - 30/07/2020 5 Research Questions 1. [Tools] Which tools exist for JavaScript vulnerability detection? 2. [Approach] What’s the approach these tools use and their main challenges for detecting vulnerabilities? 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Minimum Standards for Developer Verification of Software
    Guidelines on Minimum Standards for Developer Verification of Software Paul E. Black Barbara Guttman Vadim Okun Software and Systems Division Information Technology Laboratory July 2021 Abstract Executive Order (EO) 14028, Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity, 12 May 2021, di- rects the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to recommend minimum standards for software testing within 60 days. This document describes eleven recommen- dations for software verification techniques as well as providing supplemental information about the techniques and references for further information. It recommends the following techniques: • Threat modeling to look for design-level security issues • Automated testing for consistency and to minimize human effort • Static code scanning to look for top bugs • Heuristic tools to look for possible hardcoded secrets • Use of built-in checks and protections • “Black box” test cases • Code-based structural test cases • Historical test cases • Fuzzing • Web app scanners, if applicable • Address included code (libraries, packages, services) The document does not address the totality of software verification, but instead recom- mends techniques that are broadly applicable and form the minimum standards. The document was developed by NIST in consultation with the National Security Agency. Additionally, we received input from numerous outside organizations through papers sub- mitted to a NIST workshop on the Executive Order held in early June, 2021 and discussion at the workshop as well as follow up with several of the submitters. Keywords software assurance; verification; testing; static analysis; fuzzing; code review; software security. Disclaimer Any mention of commercial products or reference to commercial organizations is for infor- mation only; it does not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the products mentioned are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Feature Selection for Static Analysis Vulnerability Prediction
    sensors Article Efficient Feature Selection for Static Analysis Vulnerability Prediction Katarzyna Filus 1 , Paweł Boryszko 1 , Joanna Doma ´nska 1,* , Miltiadis Siavvas 2 and Erol Gelenbe 1 1 Institute of Theoretical and Applied Informatics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Baltycka 5, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland; kfi[email protected] (K.F.); [email protected] (P.B.); [email protected] (E.G.) 2 Information Technologies Institute, Centre for Research & Technology Hellas, 6th km Harilaou-Thermi, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Common software vulnerabilities can result in severe security breaches, financial losses, and reputation deterioration and require research effort to improve software security. The acceleration of the software production cycle, limited testing resources, and the lack of security expertise among programmers require the identification of efficient software vulnerability predictors to highlight the system components on which testing should be focused. Although static code analyzers are often used to improve software quality together with machine learning and data mining for software vulnerability prediction, the work regarding the selection and evaluation of different types of relevant vulnerability features is still limited. Thus, in this paper, we examine features generated by SonarQube and CCCC tools, to identify those that can be used for software vulnerability prediction. We investigate the suitability of thirty-three different features to train thirteen distinct machine learning algorithms to design vulnerability predictors and identify the most relevant features that should be used for training. Our evaluation is based on a comprehensive feature selection process based on the correlation analysis of the features, together with four well-known feature selection techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • End to End Quality Sonar Ecosystem Water Leak Metaphor
    End to End Quality with the Sonar Ecosystem and the Water Leak Metaphor G. Ann Campbell @GAnnCampbell | [email protected] @SonarLint | @SonarQube | @SonarSource SonarLint Leak Period Quality Gate 20+ Languages The <3 of the ecosystem Static Analysis What is Static Analysis? Analyzing code, without executing it! A Means to an End Detecting Bugs, Vulnerabilities, and Code Smells Why use Static Analysis Catch new problems ASAP ● the longer it takes to catch a bug, the more it costs ● no one writes perfect code every time ● rule description and precise issue location cut research time Why use Static Analysis Changing A might have added bugs in B ● peer review misses new issues in untouched code ● static analysis is machine-assisted code review; it looks at every file every time Why use Static Analysis Provide coaching ● language best practices ● team coding style SonarSource’s Toolbox Lexical Analysis Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former. Syntactic Analysis Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former. Subjects Verbs Albert E. Semantic Analysis Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former. Albert E. Semantic Analysis Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former. Albert E. Beyond Semantic: Symbolic Execution Object myObject = new Object(); if(a) { myObject = null; } ... if( !a ) { ... } else { myObject.toString(); } Beyond Semantic: Symbolic Execution Object myObject = new Object(); if(a) { myObject = null; } ..
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzed – Static Code Analysis for D Stefan Rohe 3Th May 2013 Dconf
    AnalyzeD – Static Code Analysis for D Stefan Rohe 3th May 2013 DConf 1 Overview ■ Introduction / Motivation ■ Our D Way ■ Static Code Analysis ■ Metrics ■ D1to2-Example ■ Sonar ■ Summary ■ Outlook 2 Introduction / Motivation 3 Introduction ■ Funkwerk Information Technologies HQ in Munich, Germany One of the market leaders in passenger information systems for public transportion ■ http://www.funkwerk-itk.com 4 Motivation - Sun Microsystems rationale ■ Code conventions are important to programmers for a number of reasons: 40%-80% of the lifetime cost of a piece of software goes to maintenance. Hardly any software is maintained for its whole life by the original author. Code conventions improve the readability of the software, allowing engineers to understand new code more quickly and thoroughly. If you ship your source code as a product, you need to make sure it is as well packaged and clean as any other product you create. ■ http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconventions-150003.pdf 5 Motivation ■ Started with D (D1, Tango) in mid of 2008. ■ 05/2013 having 250kLOC D (src); 8 developers ■ Writing Clean Code → Many Code Reviews ■ Time waste and social difficulty to mark Code that violates (computer checkable) conventions ■ Even more difficult if conventions and their reason haven't been written down anywhere ■ Growing team; needed a way to effectively split knowledge about the conventions ■ Got Java/C++ Programmers ■ No courses or training available 6 Motivation „You cannot always hire perfect engineers.“ Walter Bright, DConf
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Java Programming Testing Tools
    [Gautam *, Vol.5 (Iss.2): February 2018] ISSN: 2454-1907 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v5.i2.2018.147 COMPARISON OF JAVA PROGRAMMING TESTING TOOLS Shikha Gautam *1 *1 ICT Research Lab, Department of Computer Science, IIIT-L, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, 226007, India Abstract: Various testing tools have been used to find defects and measure quality of software which have been developed in different languages. This paper provides the overview of various testing tools and analyzed Java programming testing tools because Java programming is very important due to its mature nature to develop software. Java testing tools are analyzed based on various quality attributes. Analysis shows that selection of testing tool depends on requirement. Keywords: Software Testing; Software Quality; Java; Requirement. Cite This Article: Shikha Gautam. (2018). “COMPARISON OF JAVA PROGRAMMING TESTING TOOLS.” International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research, 5(2), 66-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v5.i2.2018.147. 1. Introduction Software testing is a process of executing a program or application with the intent of finding the errors or quality of the product. Software testing is conducted when executable software exists. Testing used to find out errors and fix them to support and improve software quality. Testing check what all functions of software supposed to do and also check that software is not doing what it not supposed to do [1]. Software testing is more difficult process because of the vast array of programming languages, operating systems, and hardware platforms that have evolved. There are different types of software testing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Comparison on Six Static Analysis Tools: Detection, Agreement, and Precision
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) A Critical Comparison on Six Static Analysis Tools: Detection, Agreement, and Precision Valentina Lenarduzzi · Savanna Lujan · Nyyti Saarim¨aki · Fabio Palomba Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Background. Developers use Automated Static Analysis Tools (ASATs) to control for potential quality issues in source code, including de- fects and technical debt. Tool vendors have devised quite a number of tools, which makes it harder for practitioners to select the most suitable one for their needs. To better support developers, researchers have been conducting several studies on ASATs to favor the understanding of their actual capabilities. Aims. Despite the work done so far, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding (1) which source quality problems can actually be detected by static analysis tool warnings, (2) what is their agreement, and (3) what is the precision of their recommendations. We aim at bridging this gap by proposing a large-scale comparison of six popular static analysis tools for Java projects: Better Code Hub, CheckStyle, Coverity Scan, Findbugs, PMD, and SonarQube. Method. We analyze 47 Java projects and derive a taxonomy of warnings raised by 6 state-of-the-practice ASATs. To assess their agreement, we compared them by manually analyzing - at line-level - whether they identify the same issues. Finally, we manually evaluate the precision of the tools. Results. The key results report a comprehensive taxonomy of ASATs warnings, show little to no agreement among the tools and a low degree of precision. Conclusions. We provide a taxonomy that can be useful to researchers, practi- tioners, and tool vendors to map the current capabilities of the tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimizing Quality Analysis to Deliver Business Value Amid Complexity: Code Visibility Cuts Software Risk
    I D C TECHNOLOGY SPOTLIGHT Optimizing Quality Analysis to Deliver Business Value Amid Complexity: Code Visibility Cuts Software Risk Adapted from Worldwide Automated Software Quality 2014–2018 Forecast and 2013 Vendor Shares: Some Growth in ASQ with Ongoing Adoption Projected for Mobile, Cloud and Embedded, IDC #251643 and Establishing Software Quality Analysis Strategies to Help Address Third Platform Complexity, IDC #253257 Sponsored by: SonarSource Melinda-Carol Ballou Jennifer Thomson January 2015 INTRODUCTION: UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF QUALITY ANALYSIS GAPS The shift to a digital world, the impact of digital transformation, and demand for continuous deployment across technology platforms are putting huge pressure on IT organizations as they address dynamically evolving business needs. Time to market of high-quality applications becomes critical, but delivering software releases and developing new customer-facing applications quickly is a growing challenge. This is particularly the case for large, multinational organizations that must contend with a complex web of changing, multimodal technologies combined with legacy systems and resources across thousands of users that are geographically distributed. For the CIO, the goal is not merely to improve IT agility — it is about using IT to successfully enhance business agility, innovation, and customer experience across the "3rd Platform," which ranges from mobile, to social systems of engagement, to the cloud, while incorporating Big Data analytics. At an operational level this approach puts increased pressure on companies to restructure, modernize, and transform software development and testing practices. This can allow for faster delivery of enterprise consumer applications with appropriate quality, risk, speed, and cost levels. Yet despite the obvious consequences of poor quality software on customer access, revenue, and business reputation in these influential mobile and other 3rd Platform environments, many organizations have slipped into pitiful software hygiene habits.
    [Show full text]
  • Sifu - a Cybersecurity Awareness Platform with Challenge Assessment and Intelligent Coach Tiago Espinha Gasiba1* , Ulrike Lechner2 and Maria Pinto-Albuquerque3
    Espinha Gasiba et al. Cybersecurity (2020) 3:24 Cybersecurity https://doi.org/10.1186/s42400-020-00064-4 RESEARCH Open Access Sifu - a cybersecurity awareness platform with challenge assessment and intelligent coach Tiago Espinha Gasiba1* , Ulrike Lechner2 and Maria Pinto-Albuquerque3 Abstract Software vulnerabilities, when actively exploited by malicious parties, can lead to catastrophic consequences. Proper handling of software vulnerabilities is essential in the industrial context, particularly when the software is deployed in critical infrastructures. Therefore, several industrial standards mandate secure coding guidelines and industrial software developers’ training, as software quality is a significant contributor to secure software. CyberSecurity Challenges (CSC) form a method that combines serious game techniques with cybersecurity and secure coding guidelines to raise secure coding awareness of software developers in the industry. These cybersecurity awareness events have been used with success in industrial environments. However, until now, these coached events took place on-site. In the present work, we briefly introduce cybersecurity challenges and propose a novel platform that allows these events to take place online. The introduced cybersecurity awareness platform, which the authors call Sifu, performs automatic assessment of challenges in compliance to secure coding guidelines, and uses an artificial intelligence method to provide players with solution-guiding hints. Furthermore, due to its characteristics, the Sifu platform allows for remote (online) learning, in times of social distancing. The CyberSecurity Challenges events based on the Sifu platform were evaluated during four online real-life CSC events. We report on three surveys showing that the Sifu platform’s CSC events are adequate to raise industry software developers awareness on secure coding.
    [Show full text]
  • Static Analyzers and Potential Future Research Directions for Scala: an Overview
    Static Analyzers and Potential Future Research Directions for Scala: An Overview Eljose E Sajan1, Yunpeng Zhang2*, Liang-Chieh Cheng3 1College of Natural Science and Mathematics, University of Houston, [email protected] 2College of Technology, University of Houston, [email protected] 3College of Technology, University of Houston, [email protected] Abstract—Static analyzers are tool-sets which are proving to be indispensable to modern programmers. These enable the programmers to detect possible errors and security defects present in the current code base within the implementation phase of the development cycle; rather than relying on a standalone testing phase. Static analyzers typically highlight possible defects within the ’static’ source code and thus does not require the source code to be compiled or executed. The Scala programming language has been gaining wider adoption across various industries in recent years. With such a wide adoption of tools of this nature, this paper presents an overview on the static analysis tools available, both commercial and open-source, for the Scala programming language. This paper discusses in detail about the types of defects that each of these tools can detect, limitations of these tools and also provide potential research direction that can improve the current state of static analyzers for the Scala programming language. Keywords—Scala; static code analysis; error detection I. INTRODUCTION Software development is still a human initiated task that requires extensive time and effort to plan and implement. Programmers and developers work with very short deadlines and are most concerned about delivering functionalities rather than having application security as the primary objective.
    [Show full text]
  • Cobold: Gobblin' up COBOL Bugs for Fun and Profit
    COBOLd: Gobblin’ Up COBOL Bugs for Fun and Profit squaresLab∗ Mr. squaresLab SpouseMan† Institute for Soware Research e Private Sector School of Computer Science Pisburgh, PA 15213 Carnegie Mellon University Pisburgh, PA 15213 ABSTRACT that failing test cases pass without breaking any of the originally e cost and ubiquity of soware bugs has motivated research in passing test cases. automated program repair (APR), a eld dedicated to the automatic In this work, we automatically x bugs in COBOL programs triage and patching of soware defects. APR has typically focused using COBOLd, which is just GenProg [10, 11, 17, 18] directly ap- on popular languages such as C and Java, but COBOL developers plied to COBOL programs. GenProg uses genetic programming have suered six decades of neglect and deserve a repair tool too. to traverse a space of possible patches to a given buggy program. We present COBOLd, the rst tool for automatically repairing buggy GenProg uses the test results to dene an objective function that COBOL programs. We demonstrate COBOLd’s eectiveness on informs an evolutionary search [4, 8] over the space of candidate a COBOL reimplementation of the infamous Zune leap-year bug. patches. We reuse GenProg because it is well-established and also We also argue that “we got this” and other researchers should stay we know its source code very, very well, having wrien a large pro- away so that we can x all the COBOL bugs ourselves and thus be portion of it. It turns out that, given the appropriate conguration lthy, stinking rich. options, the code we already have can totally x bugs in COBOL programs.
    [Show full text]