Re: InformIT: comparing static analysis tools

[Chris Wysopal <cwysopal () veracode com>]

Uploading code isn't an issue with software vendors because we are analyzing the artifact that they ship to their 
customer anyway; the executable version of their software, not source code.  Unless of course the executable is source 
code which is the case for JSP or PHP, and other scripting languages but they are shipping that to their customer so 
why not send it to us.

If it is an enterprise app that never leaves the four walls of the business then the business has to look at our 
independent Systrust certification from E&Y, our independent penetration test results, our employee background checks 
and our NDAs and decide whether it is worth the risk.  For 11 of the top 25 banks in the world we have passed this 
test.  We have had due diligence teams from 3 letter agencies and Fortune 50 companies come and kick our tires and we 
have never failed to pass this test. Our environment is designed so our customers IP, their executables, is only 
decrypted on an engine analysis machine for the duration of the analysis.

Veracode was founded by security people.  We are a security company.  I think this shows through in everything we do.

-Chris 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Manico [mailto:jim.manico () owasp org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 7:02 PM
To: Chris Wysopal
Cc: Gary McGraw; Secure Code Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SC-L] InformIT: comparing static analysis tools

Chris,

I've tried to leverage Veracode in recent engagements. Here is how the conversation went:

Jim:
"Boss, can I upload all of your code to this cool SaaS service for analysis?"

Client:
"Uh no, and next time you ask, I'm having you committed".

I'm sure you have faced these objections before. How do you work around them?

-Jim Manico
http://manico.net

On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Chris Wysopal <cwysopal () veracode com> wrote:

> Nice article.  In the 5 years Veracode has been selling static analysis services we have seen the market mature.  In 
> the beginning, organizations were down in the weeds. "What false positive rate or false negative rate does the 
> tool/service have over a test suite such as SAMATE."  Then we saw a move up to looking at the trees.  "Did the 
> tool/service support the Java frameworks I am using?"  Now we are seeing organizations look at the forest. "Can I 
> scale static analysis effectively over all my development sites, my outsourcers, and vendors?"  This is a good sign 
> of a maturing market.
>
> It is my firm belief that software security has a consumption problem.  
> We know what the defects are.  We know how to fix them.  We even have 
> automation for detecting a lot of them.  The problem is getting the 
> information and technology to the right person at the right time 
> effectively and managing an organization-wide program.  This is the 
> next challenge for static analysis. <bias-alert>I think SaaS based 
> software is more easily consumed and this isn't any different for 
> software security</bias-alert>
>
> -Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc-l-bounces () securecoding org 
> [mailto:sc-l-bounces () securecoding org] On Behalf Of Gary McGraw
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:49 AM
> To: Secure Code Mailing List
> Subject: [SC-L] InformIT: comparing static analysis tools
>
> hi sc-l,
>
> John Steven and I recently collaborated on an article for informIT.  The article is called "Software [In]security: 
> Comparing Apples, Oranges, and Aardvarks (or, All Static Analysis Tools Are Not Created Equal)" and is available here:
> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1680863
>
> Now that static analysis tools like Fortify and Ounce are hitting the mainstream there are many potential customers 
> who want to compare them and pick the best one.  We explain why that's more difficult than it sounds at first and 
> what to watch out for as you begin to compare tools.  We did this in order to get out in front of "test suites" that 
> purport to work for tool comparison.  If you wonder why such suites may not work as advertised, read the article.
>
> Your feedback is welcome.
>
> gem
>
> company www.cigital.com
> podcast www.cigital.com/silverbullet
> blog www.cigital.com/justiceleague
> book www.swsec.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L () 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.
> Follow KRvW Associates on Twitter at: 
> http://twitter.com/KRvW_Associates
> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L () 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.
> Follow KRvW Associates on Twitter at: 
> http://twitter.com/KRvW_Associates
> _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L () 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.
Follow KRvW Associates on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/KRvW_Associates
_______________________________________________