اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديد$mu$SE: Mutation-based Evaluation of Security-focused Static Analysis Tools for Android
104
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
This demo paper presents the technical details and usage scenarios of $mu$SE: a mutation-based tool for evaluating security-focused static analysis tools for Android. Mutation testing is generally used by software practitioners to assess the robustness of a given test-suite. However, we leverage this technique to systematically evaluate static analysis tools and uncover and document soundness issues. $mu$SEs analysis has found 25 previously undocumented flaws in static data leak detection tools for Android. $mu$SE offers four mutation schemes, namely Reachability, Complex-reachability, TaintSink, and ScopeSink, which determine the locations of seeded mutants. Furthermore, the user can extend $mu$SE by customizing the API calls targeted by the mutation analysis. $mu$SE is also practical, as it makes use of filtering techniques based on compilation and execution criteria that reduces the number of ineffective mutations.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Mobile application security has been one of the major areas of security research in the last decade. Numerous application analysis tools have been proposed in response to malicious, curious, or vulnerable apps. However, existing tools, and specifical
ly, static analysis tools, trade soundness of the analysis for precision and performance, and are hence soundy. Unfortunately, the specific unsound choices or flaws in the design of these tools are often not known or well-documented, leading to a misplaced confidence among researchers, developers, and users. This paper proposes the Mutation-based soundness evaluation ($mu$SE) framework, which systematically evaluates Android static analysis tools to discover, document, and fix, flaws, by leveraging the well-founded practice of mutation analysis. We implement $mu$SE as a semi-automated framework, and apply it to a set of prominent Android static analysis tools that detect private data leaks in apps. As the result of an in-depth analysis of one of the major tools, we discover 13 undocumented flaws. More importantly, we discover that all 13 flaws propagate to tools that inherit the flawed tool. We successfully fix one of the flaws in cooperation with the tool developers. Our results motivate the urgent need for systematic discovery and documentation of unsound choices in soundy tools, and demonstrate the opportunities in leveraging mutation testing in achieving this goal.
Mobile application security has been a major area of focus for security research over the course of the last decade. Numerous application analysis tools have been proposed in response to malicious, curious, or vulnerable apps. However, existing tools
, and specifically, static analysis tools, trade soundness of the analysis for precision and performance and are hence soundy. Unfortunately, the specific unsound choices or flaws in the design of these tools is often not known or well-documented, leading to misplaced confidence among researchers, developers, and users. This paper describes the Mutation-based Soundness Evaluation ($mu$SE) framework, which systematically evaluates Android static analysis tools to discover, document, and fix flaws, by leveraging the well-founded practice of mutation analysis. We implemented $mu$SE and applied it to a set of prominent Android static analysis tools that detect private data leaks in apps. In a study conducted previously, we used $mu$SE to discover $13$ previously undocumented flaws in FlowDroid, one of the most prominent data leak detectors for Android apps. Moreover, we discovered that flaws also propagated to other tools that build upon the design or implementation of FlowDroid or its components. This paper substantially extends our $mu$SE framework and offers an new in-depth analysis of two more major tools in our 2020 study, we find $12$ new, undocumented flaws and demonstrate that all $25$ flaws are found in more than one tool, regardless of any inheritance-relation among the tools. Our results motivate the need for systematic discovery and documentation of unsound choices in soundy tools and demonstrate the opportunities in leveraging mutation testing in achieving this goal.
We propose a new test case prioritization technique that combines both mutation-based and diversity-based approaches. Our diversity-aware mutation-based technique relies on the notion of mutant distinguishment, which aims to distinguish one mutants b
ehavior from another, rather than from the original program. We empirically investigate the relative cost and effectiveness of the mutation-based prioritization techniques (i.e., using both the traditional mutant kill and the proposed mutant distinguishment) with 352 real faults and 553,477 developer-written test cases. The empirical evaluation considers both the traditional and the diversity-aware mutation criteria in various settings: single-objective greedy, hybrid, and multi-objective optimization. The results show that there is no single dominant technique across all the studied faults. To this end, rev{we we show when and the reason why each one of the mutation-based prioritization criteria performs poorly, using a graphical model called Mutant Distinguishment Graph (MDG) that demonstrates the distribution of the fault detecting test cases with respect to mutant kills and distinguishment.
Verifiers that can prove programs correct against their full functional specification require, for programs with loops, additional annotations in the form of loop invariants---propeties that hold for every iteration of a loop. We show that significan
t loop invariant candidates can be generated by systematically mutating postconditions; then, dynamic checking (based on automatically generated tests) weeds out invalid candidates, and static checking selects provably valid ones. We present a framework that automatically applies these techniques to support a program prover, paving the way for fully automatic verification without manually written loop invariants: Applied to 28 methods (including 39 different loops) from various java.util classes (occasionally modified to avoid using Java features not fully supported by the static checker), our DYNAMATE prototype automatically discharged 97% of all proof obligations, resulting in automatic complete correctness proofs of 25 out of the 28 methods---outperforming several state-of-the-art tools for fully automatic verification.
Background: Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools purport to assist developers in detecting security issues in source code. These tools typically use rule-based approaches to scan source code for security vulnerabilities. However, due to t
he significant shortcomings of these tools (i.e., high false positive rates), learning-based approaches for Software Vulnerability Prediction (SVP) are becoming a popular approach. Aims: Despite the similar objectives of these two approaches, their comparative value is unexplored. We provide an empirical analysis of SAST tools and SVP models, to identify their relative capabilities for source code security analysis. Method: We evaluate the detection and assessment performance of several common SAST tools and SVP models on a variety of vulnerability datasets. We further assess the viability and potential benefits of combining the two approaches. Results: SAST tools and SVP models provide similar detection capabilities, but SVP models exhibit better overall performance for both detection and assessment. Unification of the two approaches is difficult due to lacking synergies. Conclusions: Our study generates 12 main findings which provide insights into the capabilities and synergy of these two approaches. Through these observations we provide recommendations for use and improvement.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
