Testing static analysis tools using exploitable buffer overflows from open source code

Misha Zitser, R. Lippmann, T. Leek
{"title":"Testing static analysis tools using exploitable buffer overflows from open source code","authors":"Misha Zitser, R. Lippmann, T. Leek","doi":"10.1145/1029894.1029911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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 Poly-Space 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 appears able to accurately distinguished between vulnerable and patched code.","PeriodicalId":121365,"journal":{"name":"SIGSOFT '04/FSE-12","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"297","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIGSOFT '04/FSE-12","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1029894.1029911","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 297

Abstract

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 Poly-Space 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 appears able to accurately distinguished between vulnerable and patched code.
使用来自开源代码的可利用缓冲区溢出测试静态分析工具
五个现代静态分析工具(ARCHER, BOON, Poly-Space C Verifier, Splint和UNO)使用源代码示例进行评估,其中包含14个可利用的缓冲区溢出漏洞,这些漏洞存在于不同版本的Sendmail, BIND和WU-FTPD中。每个代码示例都包括一个带有缓冲区溢出的“BAD”情况和一个没有缓冲区溢出的“OK”情况。缓冲区溢出变化,包括堆栈、堆、bss和数据缓冲区;在缓冲区边界上下的访问;使用指针、索引和函数进行访问;以及缓冲区创建和使用之间的作用域差异。除Poly-Space和Splint的平均检出率分别为87%和57%外,“BAD”样本的检出率较低。然而,这两种工具的平均误报率很高,大约为50%。在打过补丁的程序中,这两种工具每隔12到46行源代码就会产生一个警告,而且这两种工具似乎都无法准确区分易受攻击的代码和打过补丁的代码。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书