Integrated Dynamic and Static Scanning

[livshits at microsoft.com (Ben Livshits)]

Speaking of the lab environment, my thesis from 2006 
(http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/livshits/papers/pdf/thesis.pdf) explores the interplay between static 
and runtime in gory detail. I am not aware of these hybrid approaches being integrated into commercial products.

Regards,
-Ben

-----Original Message-----
From: sc-l-bounces at securecoding.org [mailto:sc-l-bounces at securecoding.org] On Behalf Of Jeremiah Grossman
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:30 PM
To: sc-l at securecoding.org; websecurity at webappsec.org
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Integrated Dynamic and Static Scanning

Hey all,

I've been monitoring this thread [1] and some excellent points have been raised (cross-posting to websecurity as the 
subject matter applies). I'm personally very interested in the potential benefits of an integration between dynamic and 
static analysis scanning technology. The spork of software security testing. The desire of many is a single solution 
that unifies the benefits of both methodologies and simultaneously reduces their respective well-described limitations. 
For at least the last couple of years there have been vendors claiming success in this area, of which I remain 
skeptical.

A brief explanation of the bi-directional and somewhat simple sounding innovations that vendors are trying to develop:

1) Dynamic Scanner -> Static Analyzer
A dynamic analysis engine capable of providing HTTP vulnerability details (URL, cookie, form etc.) to a static analysis 
tool. Static analysis results narrowed down to a single line of insecure code or subroutine to speed vulnerability 
remediation. Prioritize issues that are located in a publicly available code flow vs. those that are not technically 
remotely-exploitable. Isolate security issues where source code was not available, such as third-party libraries.

Static Analyzer -> Dynamic Scanner
2) A static analyzer capable of providing a remotely available attack surface (URLs, Forms, etc.) to a dynamic analysis 
tool. Dynamic analysis may realize additional testing comprehensiveness, measurement of coverage depth, and hints for 
creating exploit proof-of-concepts.
Not to mention able to provide more detailed application fix recommendations.

<vendor bias>
As it stands currently, the state-of-the-art is basically a reporting mash-up. Very little of the aforementioned 
advancements have been proven to funtion outside of the lab environment. If anyone has evidence to the contrary they 
can point to, please speak up. For those curious as to Tom Brennan's comment, these are the areas Fortify and WhiteHat 
are together working on.
</vendor bias>

This is an excellent time to be in the application and software security industry. Over the next few years there is 
going to be a lot of innovation and awareness in the "defense" side of the industry.
Talent, skill, and experience is going to command a premium.


[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/sc-l at securecoding.org/msg02731.html


Regards,

Jeremiah Grossman
Chief Technology Officer
WhiteHat Security, Inc.
http://www.whitehatsec.com/
blog: http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/
twitter: @jeremiahg
_______________________________________________
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L at securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - 
http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com) as a free, non-commercial service to the 
software security community.
_______________________________________________