Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Improving software security with static automated code analysis in an industry setting
Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Computing.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Computing.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Computing.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Computing.
2013 (English)In: Software, practice & experience, ISSN 0038-0644, E-ISSN 1097-024X, Vol. 43, no 3, 259-279 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Software security can be improved by identifying and correcting vulnerabilities. In order to reduce the cost of rework, vulnerabilities should be detected as early and efficiently as possible. Static automated code analysis is an approach for early detection. So far, only few empirical studies have been conducted in an industrial context to evaluate static automated code analysis. A case study was conducted to evaluate static code analysis in industry focusing on defect detection capability, deployment, and usage of static automated code analysis with a focus on software security. We identified that the tool was capable of detecting memory related vulnerabilities, but few vulnerabilities of other types. The deployment of the tool played an important role in its success as an early vulnerability detector, but also the developers perception of the tools merit. Classifying the warnings from the tool was harder for the developers than to correct them. The correction of false positives in some cases created new vulnerabilities in previously safe code. With regard to defect detection ability, we conclude that static code analysis is able to identify vulnerabilities in different categories. In terms of deployment, we conclude that the tool should be integrated with bug reporting systems, and developers need to share the responsibility for classifying and reporting warnings. With regard to tool usage by developers, we propose to use multiple persons (at least two) in classifying a warning. The same goes for making the decision of how to act based on the warning.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley , 2013. Vol. 43, no 3, 259-279 p.
Keyword [en]
Software security, Static analysis, Static code analysis, Vulnerabilities
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-7006DOI: 10.1002/spe.2109ISI: 000314926900001Local ID: oai:bth.se:forskinfo3B2CC72BC40A4F02C1257AC900348970OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-7006DiVA: diva2:834575
Available from: 2013-03-15 Created: 2012-12-03 Last updated: 2017-03-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Baca, DejanCarlsson, BengtPetersen, KaiLundberg, Lars
By organisation
School of Computing
In the same journal
Software, practice & experience
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 133 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf