从维护团队的角度看静态分析和渗透测试

M. Ceccato, R. Scandariato
{"title":"从维护团队的角度看静态分析和渗透测试","authors":"M. Ceccato, R. Scandariato","doi":"10.1145/2961111.2962611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Static analysis and penetration testing are common techniques used to discover security bugs in implementation code. Penetration testing is often performed in black-box way by probing the attack surface of a running system and discovering its security holes. Static analysis techniques operate in a white-box way by analyzing the source code of a system and identifying security weaknesses. Because of their different nature, the two techniques report their findings in two different ways. This paper presents an exploratory study meant to determine whether a vulnerability report generated by a security tool based on static analysis is more or less useful than a report generated by a security tool based on penetration testing. The usefulness is judged from the perspective of the developers that have to devise a vulnerability-fixing patch. The initial results show an advantage when using penetration testing in one of the two cases we investigated.","PeriodicalId":208212,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Static Analysis and Penetration Testing from the Perspective of Maintenance Teams\",\"authors\":\"M. Ceccato, R. Scandariato\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2961111.2962611\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Static analysis and penetration testing are common techniques used to discover security bugs in implementation code. Penetration testing is often performed in black-box way by probing the attack surface of a running system and discovering its security holes. Static analysis techniques operate in a white-box way by analyzing the source code of a system and identifying security weaknesses. Because of their different nature, the two techniques report their findings in two different ways. This paper presents an exploratory study meant to determine whether a vulnerability report generated by a security tool based on static analysis is more or less useful than a report generated by a security tool based on penetration testing. The usefulness is judged from the perspective of the developers that have to devise a vulnerability-fixing patch. The initial results show an advantage when using penetration testing in one of the two cases we investigated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962611\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

静态分析和渗透测试是发现实现代码中的安全漏洞的常用技术。渗透测试通常以黑盒方式进行,通过探测正在运行的系统的攻击面并发现其安全漏洞。静态分析技术通过分析系统的源代码和识别安全弱点,以白盒方式操作。由于它们的性质不同,这两种技术以两种不同的方式报告它们的发现。本文提出了一项探索性研究,旨在确定由基于静态分析的安全工具生成的漏洞报告是否比基于渗透测试的安全工具生成的报告更有用或更有用。有用性是从必须设计漏洞修复补丁的开发人员的角度来判断的。在我们调查的两个案例中使用渗透测试时,最初的结果显示了一个优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Static Analysis and Penetration Testing from the Perspective of Maintenance Teams
Static analysis and penetration testing are common techniques used to discover security bugs in implementation code. Penetration testing is often performed in black-box way by probing the attack surface of a running system and discovering its security holes. Static analysis techniques operate in a white-box way by analyzing the source code of a system and identifying security weaknesses. Because of their different nature, the two techniques report their findings in two different ways. This paper presents an exploratory study meant to determine whether a vulnerability report generated by a security tool based on static analysis is more or less useful than a report generated by a security tool based on penetration testing. The usefulness is judged from the perspective of the developers that have to devise a vulnerability-fixing patch. The initial results show an advantage when using penetration testing in one of the two cases we investigated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evidence Briefings: Towards a Medium to Transfer Knowledge from Systematic Reviews to Practitioners The Obscure Process of Innovation Assessment: A Report of an Industrial Survey Sustainable Software Development through Overlapping Pair Rotation DIGS: A Framework for Discovering Goals for Security Requirements Engineering The Impact of Task Granularity on Co-evolution Analyses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1