Billions of dollars in venture capital, industry investments, and government investments are going into the technology known as blockchain. It is being investigated in domains as diverse as finance, healthcare, defense, and communications. As blockchain technology has become more popular, programming-language security issues have emerged that pose a risk to the adoption of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain applications. In this post, I describe a new programming language, Obsidian, which we at the SEI are developing in partnership with Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) writing secure smart contracts in blockchain platforms.
In the first post in this series, I presented 10 types of application security testing (AST) tools and discussed when and how to use them. In this post, I will delve into the decision-making factors to consider when selecting an AST tool and present guidance in the form of lists that can easily be referenced as checklists by those responsible for application security testing.
IPv6 deployment is on the rise. Google reported that as of July 14 2018, 23.94 percent of users accessed its site via IPv6, up 6.16 percent from that same date in 2017. Drafted in 1998 and an Internet Standard as of July 2017, Internet Protocol 6 (IPv6) is intended to replace IPv4 in assigning devices on the internet a unique identity. Plans for IPv6 got underway after it was realized that IPv4's cap of 4.3 billion addresses would not be sufficient to cover the number of devices accessing the internet. This blog post is the first in a series aimed at encouraging IPv6 adoption, whether at the enterprise-wide level, the organizational level, or the individual, home-user level.
Bugs and weaknesses in software are common: 84 percent of software breaches exploit vulnerabilities at the application layer. The prevalence of software-related problems is a key motivation for using application security testing (AST) tools. With a growing number of application security testing tools available, it can be confusing for information technology (IT) leaders, developers, and engineers to know which tools address which issues. This blog post, the first in a series on application security testing tools, will help to navigate the sea of offerings by categorizing the different types of AST tools available and providing guidance on how and when to use each class of tool.
Numerous tools exists to help detect flaws in code. Some of these are called flaw-finding static analysis (FFSA) tools because they identify flaws by analyzing code without running it. Typical output of an FFSA tool includes a list of alerts for specific lines of code with suspected flaws. This blog post presents our initial work on applying static analysis test suites in a novel way by automatically generating a large amount of labeled data for a wide variety of code flaws to jump-start static analysis alert classifiers (SAACs). SAACs are designed to automatically estimate the likelihood that any given alert indicates a genuine flaw.
Invalid memory accesses are one of the most prevalent and serious of software vulnerabilities. Leakage of sensitive information caused by out-of-bounds reads is a relatively new problem that most recently took the form of the Open SSL HeartBleed vulnerability. In this blog post, I will describe research aimed at detecting the intended bounds of memory that given pointers should be able to access.
Software vulnerabilities typically cost organizations an average of $300,000 per security incident. Efforts aimed at eliminating software vulnerabilities must focus on secure coding, preventing the vulnerabilities from being deployed into production code. "Between 2010 and 2015, buffer overflows accounted for between 10-16% of publicly reported security vulnerabilities in the U.S. National Vulnerability Database each year," Microsoft researcher David Narditi wrote in a recent report. In March, the Secure Coding Team in the SEI's CERT Division published the 2016 edition of our SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard and made it freely available for download. In this blog post I will highlight some distinctive rules from the standard.
Federal agencies and other organizations face an overwhelming security landscape. The arsenal available to these organizations for securing software includes static analysis tools, which search code for flaws, including those that could lead to software vulnerabilities. The sheer effort required by auditors and coders to triage the large number of potential code flaws typically identified by static analysis can hijack a software project's budget and schedule. Auditors need a tool to classify alerts and to prioritize some of them for manual analysis. As described in my first post in this series, I am leading a team on a research project in the SEI's CERT Division to use classification models to help analysts and coders prioritize which vulnerabilities to address. In this second post, I will detail our collaboration with three U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) organizations to field test our approach. Two of these organizations each conduct static analysis of approximately 100 million lines of code (MLOC) annually.
Finding violations of secure coding guidelines in source code is daunting, but fixing them is an even greater challenge. We are creating automated tools for source code transformation. Experience in examining software bugs reveals that many security-relevant bugs follow common patterns (which can be automatically detected) and that there are corresponding patterns for repair (which can be performed by automatic program transformation). For example, integer overflow in calculations related to array bounds or indices is almost always a bug. While static analysis tools can help, they typically produce an enormous number of warnings. Once an issue has been identified, teams are only able to eliminate a small percentage of the vulnerabilities identified. As a result, code bases often contain an unknown number of security bug vulnerabilities. This blog post describes our research in automated code repair, which can eliminate security vulnerabilities much faster than the existing manual process and at a much lower cost. While this research focuses to the C programming language, it applies to other languages as well.
As part of an ongoing effort to keep you informed about our latest work, this blog post summarizes some recently published SEI technical reports, white papers, and webinars in resilience, effective cyber workforce development, secure coding, data science, insider threat, and scheduling. These publications highlight the latest work of SEI technologists in these areas. This post includes a listing of each publication, author(s), and links where they can be accessed on the SEI website.
Writing secure C++ code is hard. C++11 and C++14 have added new facilities that change the way programmers write C++ code with the introduction of features like lambdas and concurrency. Few resources exist, however, describing how these new facilities also increase the number of ways in which security vulnerabilities can be introduced into a program or how to avoid using these facilities insecurely. Previous secure coding efforts, including the SEI CERT C Coding Standard and SEI CERT Oracle Coding Standard for Java , have proved successful in helping programmers identify possible insecure code in C and Java but do not provide sufficient information to cover C++. Other efforts, such as MISRA C++:2008 and the community-led C++ Core Guidelines, create a subset of the C++ language and do not focus on security. This blog post introduces the SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard and explores some examples of areas in C++ that can result in security vulnerabilities.
In 2015, the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) recorded 6,488 new software vulnerabilities, and the NVD documents a total of 74,885 software vulnerabilities discovered between 1988-2016. Static analysis tools examine code for flaws, including those that could lead to software security vulnerabilities, and produce diagnostic messages ("alerts") indicating the location of the purported flaw in the source code, the nature of the flaw, and often additional contextual information. A human auditor then evaluates the validity of the purported code flaws. The effort required to manually audit all alerts and repair all confirmed code flaws is often too much for a project's budget and schedule. Auditors therefore need tools that allow them to triage alerts, strategically prioritizing the alerts for examination. This blog post describes research we are conducting that uses classification models to help analysts and coders prioritize which alerts to address.
Today's computer systems often contain millions of lines of code and are constructed by integrating components, many of which are authored by various third parties. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are the glue that connects these software components. While the SEI and others have placed significant emphasis on developing secure coding practices, there has not been an equal emphasis placed on APIs. This blog post describes our recent research that aims to provide specific guidance to API designers to help them deal with the security issues regarding development of APIs.
In 2015, the SEI blog launched a redesigned platform to make browsing easier, and our content areas more accessible and easier to navigate. The SEI Blog audience also continued to grow with an ever-increasing number of visitors learning more about our research in technical debt, shift-left testing, graph analytics, DevOps, secure coding, and malware analysis. In 2015 (from January 1 through December 15), the SEI blog logged 159,604 visits and sessions (we also switched analytics platforms mid-year), a 26 percent increase in traffic from the previous year. This blog post highlights the top 10 posts published in 2015. As we did with our mid-year review, we will include links to additional related resources that readers might find of interest. We also will present the posts in descending order beginning with the 10th most popular post of 2015 and counting down to number one.
By David Svoboda Senior Member of the Technical Staff CERT Division
Whether Java is more secure than C is a simple question to ask, but a hard question to answer well. When we began writing the SEI CERT Oracle Coding Standard for Java, we thought that Java would require fewer secure coding rules than the SEI CERT C Coding Standard because Java was designed with security in mind. We naively assumed that a more secure language would need fewer rules than a less secure one. However, Java has 168 coding rules compared to just 116 for C. Why? Was our (admittedly simplistic) assumption completely spurious? Or, are there problems with our C or Java rules? Or, are Java programs, on average, just as susceptible to vulnerabilities as C programs? In this post, I attempt to analyze our CERT rules for both C and Java to determine if they indeed refute the conventional wisdom that Java is more secure than C.
Each software application installed on a mobile smartphone, whether a new app or an update, can introduce new, unintentional vulnerabilities or malicious code. These problems can lead to security challenges for organizations whose staff uses mobile phones for work. In April 2014, we published a blog post highlighting DidFail (Droid Intent Data Flow Analysis for Information Leakage), which is a static analysis tool for Android app sets that addresses data privacy and security issues faced by both individual smartphone users and organizations. This post highlights enhancements made to DidFail in late 2014 and an enterprise-level approach for using the tool.
A zero-day vulnerability refers to a software security vulnerability that has been exploited before any patch is published. In the past, vulnerabilities were widely exploited even when a patch was available, which means they were not zero-day. Today, zero-day vulnerabilities are common. Notorious examples include the recent Stuxnet and Operation Aurora exploits. Vulnerabilities may arise from a variety of sources, but most vulnerabilities are the result of simple coding errors. Consequently, developers need to understand common traps and pitfalls in the programming language, libraries, and platform to produce code that is free of vulnerabilities.
With the rise of multi-core processors, concurrency has become increasingly common. The broader use of concurrency, however, has been accompanied by new challenges for programmers, who struggle to avoid race conditions and other concurrent memory access hazards when writing multi-threaded programs. The problem with concurrency is that many programmers have been trained to think sequentially, so when multiple threads execute concurrently, they struggle to visualize those threads executing in parallel. When two threads attempt to access the same unprotected region of memory concurrently (one reading, one writing) logical inconsistencies can arise in the program, which can yield security concerns that are hard to detect.
In the first half of this year, the SEI blog has experienced unprecedented growth, with visitors in record numbers learning more about our work in big data, secure coding for Android, malware analysis, Heartbleed, and V Models for Testing. In the first six months of 2014 (through June 20), the SEI blog has logged 60,240 visits, which is nearly comparable with the entire 2013 yearly total of 66,757 visits. As we reach the mid-year point, this blog posting takes a look back at our most popular areas of work (at least according to you, our readers) and highlights our most popular blog posts for the first half of 2014, as well as links to additional related resources that readers might find of interest.
The Heartbleed bug, a serious vulnerability in the Open SSL crytographic software library, enables attackers to steal information that, under normal conditions, is protected by the Secure Socket Layer/Transport Layer Security(SSL/TLS) encryption used to secure the internet. Heartbleed and its aftermath left many questions in its wake:
Would the vulnerability have been detected by static analysis tools?
If the vulnerability has been in the wild for two years, why did it take so long to bring this to public knowledge now?
Who is ultimately responsible for open-source code reviews and testing?
Is there anything we can do to work around Heartbleed to provide security for banking and email web browser applications?
This blog post describes a research initiative aimed at eliminating vulnerabilities resulting from memory management problems in C and C++. Memory problems in C and C++ can lead to serious software vulnerabilities including difficulty fixing bugs, performance impediments, program crashes (including null pointer deference and out-of-memory errors), and remote code execution.
Billions of dollars in venture capital, industry investments, and government investments are going into the technology known as blockchain. It is being investigated in domains as diverse as finance, healthcare, defense, and communications. As blockchain technology has become more popular,...