Source code security is an inalienable component of a safe software engineering workflow. There is a separate category of tools geared toward checking applications for vulnerabilities at the development stage. These solutions are currently booming and getting more sophisticated, partially due to the increasing regulatory pressure.
This article will go over the common types of source code testing instruments. It will explain the difference between different tools representing the Static, Dynamic, and Interactive Application Security Testing clusters (SAST, DAST, and IAST) and shed light on the growingly popular Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) technology. You will also learn what tasks can be solved using these scanners and how this market niche may evolve in the near future.
The whys and wherefores of checking code for security issues
Organizations have mastered the key techniques to address vulnerabilities inside their perimeter by patching commonplace software environments such as operating systems and database management tools. However, there can be unique solutions in use – ones that are tailor-made for solving specific tasks. To prevent such programs from becoming entry points for malicious actors, companies need to find and fix security flaws in them.
It is important for organizations to know what fragments of software code are being used in different segments of their IT infrastructure while keeping track of code authorship details. When errors are found in a specific fragment, companies need to determine what systems they affect and fix them without delay, preferably by assigning this task to the developer who wrote the buggy code.
Building the defenses from the ground up is paramount because all levels of an enterprise digital architecture are mutually dependent. Therefore, each one of them affects the overall security of the organization. To keep the costs down, it is a good idea to set an objective that will be achieved through code assessment. It could boil down to compliance with regulatory requirements or a desire to reduce the risks of hacking and malware attacks.
Code assessment solutions allow a developer to avoid the costs of eliminating vulnerabilities detected after the system is released. The earlier a company’s management realizes the importance of code security, the less time, money, and other resources are required for applying patches down the road.
Some services and applications are intertwined with an organization’s revenue model. Financial and trading programs are a few examples. When attackers compromise these systems, the consequences go beyond reputational issues and entail a direct monetary loss for the company.
Of course, scanning code for loopholes is not the only element of secure software engineering, but it is the first and necessary step that allows the developer to stay on top of the process. If an IT team relies solely on patches, this tactic is always reactive rather than proactive, and thus adversaries get more time and opportunities to infiltrate the network. The “Shift Left” principle (shifting security analysis as close as possible to the beginning of the development process) reduces the potential costs of dealing with problems for both the developer and the customer afterward.
It is also noteworthy that ignoring legal risks can be a slippery slope. A company should understand what code it owns, who will possess the rights to the code in case the business is split up, and what the licensing requirements of third-party components are. In these scenarios, code assessment can be a means of facilitating lawyers’ work.
Are open-source scanners worthwhile?
There is no such thing as entirely free software, let alone cheap security. At the same time, you cannot say for sure which scanner is better – a commercial or a free one. Instead, you can only argue which tool is the most appropriate for a specific task. You can combine different kernels to analyze code at different stages of a project and use different scanners for different development workflows.
Open-source tools can provide a basic level of security, but you will most likely need specialized InfoSec products to pinpoint more complex vulnerabilities. Commercial tools often provide advanced recommendation functionality. This is important because simply reporting a problem is not enough in some cases. It may also be necessary to explain what must be done, all the way up to fixing the shoddy code automatically.
The authors of such scanners need to make a good deal of effort and invest a lot of money to integrate detailed vulnerability descriptions along with hands-on recommendation features into their products. Many makers of open-source tools do not have such resources.
What are SAST, DAST, and IAST? And which one to choose?
To grasp the current categorization of code security scanners, you need to remember five acronyms. The traditional approaches include static (SAST), dynamic (DAST), and hybrid (IAST) analysis. Additionally, there is Feedback-based Application Security Testing (FAST), also known as fuzzing. Another technology on the list is RASP, which operates as a kind of internal application firewall and is used to identify and block attacks in real-time.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools are worth mentioning, too. Their purpose is to vet third-party components used in a system. Entry-level variants of these solutions list third-party libraries integrated into the development process and spot vulnerabilities in them. Advanced SCA tools can additionally assess the functioning of proprietary code and figure out whether the discovered vulnerabilities can be exploited in a specific system.
Each of these tools should be used at a particular stage of the development, security, and operations (DevSecOps) routine. A static analyzer helps write secure code and form the application’s architectural backbone, while dynamic assessment and IAST are useful when the program is being compiled and tested. None of these tools ensures ultimate code security but using a combination of them can provide decent results. The choice of the most appropriate assessment solution depends on the customers’ privileges – whether they can access the code or only use the application.
In any case, static analysis is a good starting point, but other instruments should be considered as well. Different companies treat the development process differently, but SAST is undoubtedly one of the fundamental tools as long as code security is a priority. Furthermore, instead of contraposing static and dynamic analysis, organizations should combine the two for stronger security. Some types of vulnerabilities can only be discovered in a static condition, others are detectable in dynamics, and many issues are somewhere in between.
What hampers the deployment of code security assessment tools?
The complexity of interaction between InfoSec specialists and developers is a significant obstacle to deploying source code analysis solutions. Programmers often have their own perspectives on how critical a vulnerability is and whether fixing it is an urgent task.
In some cases, vulnerability databases can help come to a common denominator, but even the most comprehensive database is not always applicable to a particular development framework. Furthermore, every application has its unique threat model, and the vulnerability severity evaluation should be performed in the context of a specific software engineering workflow. Interactive analysis can help you prioritize what needs patching. It is also necessary to come up with security requirements at an early stage of development when the application’s architecture and functionality are being formed.
Company executives should keep in mind that an error is not necessarily a vulnerability. To correctly build a dialogue with the developers, they need to provide as much structured information as possible about the detected problem with references to international practices and other sources.
What does this market’s future hold?
In the future, code analyzers will migrate to the cloud. This process is already underway, and many vendors are generating up to 50% of their revenue from cloud-based code security systems.
Another trend comes down to strengthening regulatory requirements that relate to code security. Developers used to be primarily concerned about compliance with functional requirements, but things have changed. Nowadays, to deliver solutions to critical industries, they need to think not only about the security of the digital infrastructure in use but also about the security of the code.
A mix of increased reliance on open-source components and the growing code complexity may also define the evolution of this market for the next few years. All of this will stimulate demand for solutions potent enough to analyze a larger number of nesting levels and dependencies.
Usalama wa kanuni ya chanzo ni sehemu isiyoweza kuondolewa ya mtiririko wa kazi salama ya uhandisi wa programu. Kuna jamii tofauti ya zana geared kuelekea kuangalia maombi kwa ajili ya udhaifu katika hatua ya maendeleo. Suluhisho hizi kwa sasa ni booming na kupata zaidi ya kisasa, kwa sehemu kutokana na kuongezeka kwa shinikizo la udhibiti. Makala hii itakwenda juu ya aina ya kawaida ya chanzo code kupima vyombo. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""Mafunzo ya Usalama wa Programu ya Static, Dynamic, na Interactive (SAST, DAST, na IAST) yanaonyesha tofauti kati ya zana tofauti zinazowakilisha makundi ya Usalama wa Programu ya Static, Dynamic, na Interactive (SADT) na kutoa mwangaza juu ya teknolojia ya Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP)." Pia utajifunza ni kazi zipi zinazoweza kutatuliwa kwa kutumia scanners hizi na jinsi niche hii ya soko inaweza kubadilika katika siku zijazo za karibu. Kwa nini na kwa nini ya kuangalia code kwa ajili ya masuala ya usalama Mashirika kuwa na ustadi mbinu muhimu ya kushughulikia udhaifu ndani ya perimeter yao kwa patching mazingira ya kawaida ya programu kama vile mifumo ya uendeshaji na zana za usimamizi wa hifadhidata. Hata hivyo, kunaweza kuwa na ufumbuzi wa kipekee katika matumizi <unk> wale ambao ni tailor-made kwa kutatua kazi maalum. Ili kuzuia programu hizo zisiwe njia ya kuingia kwa watendaji wenye madhara, makampuni yanahitaji kupata na kurekebisha kasoro za usalama ndani yake. Ni muhimu kwa mashirika kujua ni vipande gani vya nambari ya programu zinatumiwa katika sehemu tofauti za miundombinu yao ya IT wakati wa kufuatilia maelezo ya uandishi wa nambari. Wakati makosa ni kupatikana katika sehemu maalum, makampuni haja ya kuamua nini mifumo wao kuathiri na kurekebisha yao bila kuchelewa, ikiwezekana kwa kugawa kazi hii kwa developer ambaye aliandika code buggy. Kuunda ulinzi kutoka chini ni muhimu sana kwa sababu ngazi zote za usanifu wa dijiti wa biashara zinategemea kila mmoja. Kwa hiyo, kila moja yao huathiri usalama wa shirika kwa ujumla. Ili kuweka gharama chini, ni wazo nzuri kuweka lengo kwamba itakuwa kupatikana kwa njia ya tathmini ya kanuni. Hii inaweza kuishia kwa kufuata mahitaji ya kisheria au hamu ya kupunguza hatari ya hacking na mashambulizi ya programu hasidi. Suluhisho la tathmini ya nambari inaruhusu msanidi programu kuepuka gharama za kuondoa udhaifu uliogunduliwa baada ya mfumo kutolewa. Usimamizi wa kampuni unapotambua umuhimu wa usalama wa nambari mapema, muda mdogo, pesa, na rasilimali zingine zinahitajika kwa kutumia patches chini ya barabara. Baadhi ya huduma na maombi ni intertwined na shirika la mapato ya mfano. Programu za kifedha na biashara ni mifano michache. Wakati washambuliaji kuhatarisha mifumo hii, matokeo kwenda zaidi ya masuala ya sifa na kusababisha hasara ya moja kwa moja ya fedha kwa ajili ya kampuni. Bila shaka, code scanning kwa ajili ya mapungufu si kipengele pekee ya uhandisi salama programu, lakini ni hatua ya kwanza na muhimu ambayo inaruhusu developer kukaa juu ya mchakato. Ikiwa timu ya IT inategemea tu patches, mbinu hii daima ni reactive badala ya proactive, na hivyo maadui kupata muda zaidi na fursa ya kuingilia mtandao. "Shift kushoto" kanuni (kuhamisha uchambuzi wa usalama karibu iwezekanavyo kwa mwanzo wa mchakato wa maendeleo) hupunguza gharama za uwezekano wa kushughulika na matatizo kwa wote waendelezaji na mteja baadaye. Pia ni jambo la kuvutia kwamba kupuuza hatari za kisheria kunaweza kuwa jambo lisilowezekana. Kampuni inapaswa kuelewa ni nini code inamiliki, ambaye itakuwa na haki ya code katika kesi ya biashara ni kugawanywa, na nini mahitaji ya leseni ya sehemu ya tatu ni. Katika matukio haya, tathmini ya kanuni inaweza kuwa njia ya kuwezesha kazi ya wanasheria. Je, vifaa vya kuchunguza habari vinavyotumiwa ni vyenye thamani? Hakuna kitu kama programu huru kabisa, achilia mbali usalama wa bei nafuu. Wakati huo huo, huwezi kusema kwa uhakika ambayo scanner ni bora <unk> kibiashara au moja ya bure. Badala yake, unaweza tu kubishana ni zana gani inayofaa zaidi kwa kazi maalum. Unaweza kuchanganya kernels tofauti kuchambua kanuni katika hatua tofauti za mradi na kutumia scanners tofauti kwa ajili ya mtiririko wa kazi tofauti ya maendeleo. Vifaa vya chanzo wazi vinaweza kutoa kiwango cha msingi cha usalama, lakini uwezekano mkubwa unahitaji bidhaa maalumu za InfoSec kutambua udhaifu tata zaidi. Vifaa vya kibiashara mara nyingi hutoa utendaji wa mapendekezo ya juu. Hilo ni jambo muhimu kwa sababu katika visa fulani kuripoti tu tatizo hakutoshi. Huenda ikawa muhimu pia kueleza ni nini kinachopaswa kufanywa, hadi kurekebisha nambari mbaya moja kwa moja. Waandishi wa scanner kama hizo wanahitaji kufanya juhudi kubwa na kuwekeza pesa nyingi kuunganisha maelezo ya kina ya udhaifu pamoja na vipengele vya mapendekezo ya mikono katika bidhaa zao. Watengenezaji wengi wa zana za chanzo wazi hawana rasilimali kama hizo. SAST, DAST, na IAST ni nini? Na ni ipi ya kuchagua? Ili kuelewa uainishaji wa sasa wa wachunguzi wa usalama wa nambari, unahitaji kukumbuka vifupisho vitano. Mbinu za jadi ni pamoja na static (SAST), dynamic (DAST), na mchanganyiko (IAST) uchambuzi. Kwa kuongezea, kuna Upimaji wa Usalama wa Maombi unaotegemea Maoni (FAST), unaojulikana pia kama fuzzing. Teknolojia nyingine kwenye orodha ni RASP, ambayo inafanya kazi kama aina ya firewall ya ndani ya programu na hutumiwa kutambua na kuzuia mashambulizi kwa wakati halisi. Programu Composition Uchambuzi (SCA) zana ni thamani ya kutajwa, pia. Kusudi lao ni kuchunguza vipengele vya mtu wa tatu kutumika katika mfumo. Tofauti za kiwango cha kuingia cha suluhisho hizi zinaorodhesha maktaba za mtu wa tatu zilizounganishwa katika mchakato wa maendeleo na kugundua udhaifu ndani yao. Vifaa vya SCA vya hali ya juu vinaweza pia kutathmini utendaji wa nambari ya wamiliki na kugundua ikiwa udhaifu uliogunduliwa unaweza kutumiwa katika mfumo maalum. Kila moja ya zana hizi inapaswa kutumika katika hatua fulani ya maendeleo, usalama, na shughuli (DevSecOps) kawaida. Static analyzer husaidia kuandika code salama na fomu maombi ya usanifu uti wa mgongo, wakati tathmini nguvu na IAST ni muhimu wakati programu ni kuwa compiled na majaribio. Hakuna moja ya zana hizi kuhakikisha mwisho code usalama lakini kutumia mchanganyiko wao inaweza kutoa matokeo mazuri. Uchaguzi wa ufumbuzi wa tathmini inayofaa zaidi inategemea haki za wateja - kama wanaweza kupata nambari au kutumia tu maombi. Kwa vyovyote vile, uchambuzi wa static ni hatua nzuri ya kuanza, lakini vyombo vingine vinapaswa kuzingatiwa pia. Kampuni tofauti zinashughulikia mchakato wa maendeleo tofauti, lakini SAST bila shaka ni moja ya zana za msingi kwa muda mrefu kama usalama wa nambari ni kipaumbele. Zaidi ya hayo, badala ya kupinga uchambuzi wa static na dynamic, mashirika yanapaswa kuchanganya mbili kwa usalama mkubwa. Baadhi ya aina ya udhaifu inaweza tu kugunduliwa katika hali ya static, wengine ni detectable katika nguvu, na masuala mengi ni mahali fulani kati. Ni nini kinazuia utumiaji wa zana za tathmini ya usalama wa nambari? Utata wa mwingiliano kati ya wataalamu wa InfoSec na watengenezaji ni kikwazo kikubwa kwa kupeleka ufumbuzi wa uchambuzi wa nambari ya chanzo. Programu mara nyingi kuwa na mtazamo wao wenyewe juu ya jinsi muhimu udhaifu ni na kama kurekebisha ni kazi ya haraka. Katika baadhi ya kesi, database ya udhaifu inaweza kusaidia kuja kwa denominator ya kawaida, lakini hata database ya kina zaidi si daima inatumika kwa mfumo maalum wa maendeleo. Zaidi ya hayo, kila maombi ina mfano wake wa tishio ya kipekee, na tathmini ya ukali wa udhaifu inapaswa kufanywa katika muktadha wa mtiririko maalum wa kazi ya uhandisi wa programu. Uchambuzi wa maingiliano unaweza kukusaidia kuweka kipaumbele kile kinachohitaji kurekebishwa. Pia ni muhimu kuja na mahitaji ya usalama katika hatua ya mapema ya maendeleo wakati maombi ya usanifu na utendaji ni kuundwa. Wakurugenzi wa kampuni wanapaswa kukumbuka kwamba kosa si lazima liwe udhaifu. Ili kujenga vizuri mazungumzo na watengenezaji, wanahitaji kutoa habari nyingi iwezekanavyo kuhusu tatizo lililogunduliwa na marejeo ya mazoea ya kimataifa na vyanzo vingine. Ni nini kinachohusika na soko hili wakati ujao? Katika siku zijazo, wachambuzi wa nambari watahamia kwenye wingu. Mchakato huu tayari unaendelea, na wauzaji wengi wanazalisha hadi 50% ya mapato yao kutoka kwa mifumo ya usalama wa nambari ya wingu. Mwelekeo mwingine huja chini ya kuimarisha mahitaji ya udhibiti ambayo yanahusiana na usalama wa nambari. Watengenezaji kutumika kuwa hasa wasiwasi kuhusu kufuata mahitaji ya kazi, lakini mambo yamebadilika. Leo, ili kutoa ufumbuzi kwa viwanda muhimu, wanahitaji kufikiria sio tu juu ya usalama wa miundombinu ya dijiti inayotumika, lakini pia juu ya usalama wa nambari. Mchanganyiko wa kuongezeka kwa kutegemea vipengele vya chanzo wazi na kuongezeka kwa utata wa nambari pia inaweza kuamua mageuzi ya soko hili kwa miaka michache ijayo. Yote haya itasababisha mahitaji ya ufumbuzi nguvu ya kutosha kuchambua idadi kubwa ya viwango nesting na utegemezi.