首页> 外文期刊>Software Engineering Notes >Testing Static Analysis Tools using Exploitable Buffer Overflows from Open Source Code
【24h】

Testing Static Analysis Tools using Exploitable Buffer Overflows from Open Source Code

机译:使用开放源代码中的可利用缓冲区溢出来测试静态分析工具

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Five modern static analysis tools (ARCHER, BOON, Poly-Space C Verifier, Splint, and UNO) were evaluated using source code examples containing 14 exploitable buffer overflow vulnerabilities found in various versions of Sendmail, BIND, and WU-FTPD. Each code example included a "BAD" case with and a "OK" case without buffer overflows. Buffer overflows varied and included stack, heap, bss and data buffers; access above and below buffer bounds; access using pointers, indices, and functions; and scope differences between buffer creation and use. Detection rates for the "BAD" examples were low except for PolySpace and Splint which had average detection rates of 87% and 57%, respectively. However, average false alarm rates were high and roughly 50% for these two tools. On patched programs these two tools produce one warning for every 12 to 46 lines of source code and neither tool accurately distinguished between vulnerable and patched code.
机译:使用源代码示例评估了五个现代静态分析工具(ARCHER,BOON,Poly-Space C验证程序,Slint和UNO),这些示例包含14个可利用的缓冲区溢出漏洞,这些漏洞在各种版本的Sendmail,BIND和WU-FTPD中都发现。每个代码示例都包括一个“ BAD”情况和一个“ OK”情况,没有缓冲区溢出。缓冲区溢出各不相同,包括堆栈,堆,bss和数据缓冲区。访问缓冲区上下限;使用指针,索引和函数进行访问;缓冲区创建和使用之间的范围差异。除PolySpace和Splint的平均检出率分别为87%和57%外,“ BAD”示例的检出率很低。但是,这两种工具的平均误报率很高,大约为50%。在补丁程序中,这两种工具每12到46行源代码都会产生一个警告,而这两种工具都无法准确区分易受攻击的代码和补丁后的代码。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号