Andrew Berns
Abstract
Computers are nearly ubiquitous in modern society with uses from maintaining friendships and monitoring homes to managing money and coordinating health care. As the roles of a computer continue to expand, so to does the threat posed by cyberattacks. An important challenge for today's software engineers is to build secure software and help neutralize these threats. Formal methods have long been suggested as an excellent way to build secure software but have not been widely adopted for this purpose. The "conventional wisdom" has suggested several reasons for this slow adoption, including a steep learning curve, difficulty in augmenting existing systems, and lack of tools with security-specific abstractions. Our hypothesis, however, is that applying a small and easy to learn subset of the techniques available today could significantly decrease software vulnerabilities and reduce the risk of cyberattacks. In this paper, we discuss the motivation for our hypothesis and discuss our ongoing experiment to test it.
- Magdy S. Abadir, Kenneth L. Albin, John Havlicek, Narayanan Krishnamurthy, and Andrew K. Martin. 2003. Formal Verification Successes at Motorola. Formal Methods in System Design 22, 2 (01 Mar 2003), 117--123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1022917321255Google Scholar
- Paul E. Black, Lee Badger, Barbara Guttman, and Elizabeth Fong. 2016. Dramatically Reducing Software Vulnerabilities.Google Scholar
- US National Security Agency Center for Assured Software (CAS). 2017. Juliet Test Suite. https://samate.nist.gov/SRD/testsuite.phpGoogle Scholar
- Stephen Chong, Joshua Guttman, Anupam Datta, Andrew Myers, Benjamin Pierce, Patrick Schaumont, Tim Sherwood, and Nickolai Zeldovich. 2016. Report on the NSF Workshop on Formal Methods for Security. Technical Report. USA.Google Scholar
- Omar Chowdhury, Limin Jia, Deepak Garg, and Anupam Datta. 2014. Temporal Mode-Checking for Runtime Monitoring of Privacy Policies. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification - Volume 8559. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 131--149. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978--3--319-08867--9_9Google ScholarDigital Library
- David R. Cok. 2011. OpenJML: JML for Java 7 by Extending OpenJDK. In NASA Formal Methods, Mihaela Bobaru, Klaus Havelund, Gerard J. Holzmann, and Rajeev Joshi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 472--479.Google Scholar
- The MITRE Corporation. 2018. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. https: //cve.mitre.org/.Google Scholar
- D. Evans and D. Larochelle. 2002. Improving security using extensible lightweight static analysis. IEEE Software 19, 1 (Jan 2002), 42--51. https://doi.org/10.1109/52. 976940Google ScholarDigital Library
- Apache Software Foundation. 2018. Apache Subversion. https://subversion. apache.org/Google Scholar
- Apache Software Foundation. 2018. Apache Tomcat. http://tomcat.apache.org/Google Scholar
- G. J. Holzmann and M. H. Smith. 2000. Automating software feature verification. Bell Labs Technical Journal 5, 2 (April 2000), 72--87. https://doi.org/10.1002/bltj. 2223Google Scholar
- David Hovemeyer and William Pugh. 2004. Finding Bugs is Easy. SIGPLAN Not. 39, 12 (Dec. 2004), 92--106. https://doi.org/10.1145/1052883.1052895Google ScholarDigital Library
- Linux Kernel Organization Inc. 2018. The Linux Kernel. https://www.kernel.org/Google Scholar
- SANS Institute and MITRE. 2011. 2011 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors. http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/.Google Scholar
- Jenkins. 2018. Jenkins. https://jenkins.io/Google Scholar
- Gerwin Klein, Kevin Elphinstone, Gernot Heiser, June Andronick, David Cock, Philip Derrin, Dhammika Elkaduwe, Kai Engelhardt, Rafal Kolanski, Michael Norrish, Thomas Sewell, Harvey Tuch, and Simon Winwood. 2009. seL4: Formal Verification of an OS Kernel. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22Nd Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 207--220. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629575.1629596Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rick Kuhn, Mohammad Raunak, and Raghu Kacker. 2018. What Proportion of Vulnerabilities Can Be Attributed to Ordinary Coding Errors?: Poster. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Symposium and Bootcamp on Hot Topics in the Science of Security (HoTSoS '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 30, 1 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3190619.3191686Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Larochelle and David Evans. 2001. Statically Detecting Likely Buffer Overflow Vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium - Volume 10 (SSYM'01). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, Article 14. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1251327.1251341Google Scholar
- Hongzhe Li, Jaesang Oh, and Heejo Lee. 2016. Detecting Violations of Security Requirements for Vulnerability Discovery in Source Code. IEICE Transacopenions on Information and Systems E99.D, 9 (2016), 2385--2389. https://doi.org/10.1587/ transinf.2016EDL8035Google Scholar
- Peter Naur and Brian Randell (Eds.). 1969. Software Engineering: Report of a Conference Sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, 7--11 Oct. 1968, Brussels, Scientific Affairs Division, NATO.Google Scholar
- Vadim Okun, Aurelien Delaitre, and Paul E. Black. 2013. Report on the Static Analysis Tool Exposition (SATE) IV, NIST Special Publication 500--297.Google Scholar
- OWASP. 2018. Dependency Check. https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_ Dependency_Check.Google Scholar
- K. Schaffer and J. Voas. 2016. What Happened to Formal Methods for Security? Computer 49, 8 (Aug 2016), 70--79. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2016.228Google ScholarDigital Library
- CppCheck Team. 2018. CppCheck. http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Security Vulnerabilities of SGX and Countermeasures: A Survey
Invited TutorialTrusted Execution Environments (TEEs) have been widely used in many security-critical applications. The popularity of TEEs derives from its high security and trustworthiness supported by secure hardware. Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX) is one of ...
Security vulnerabilities and mitigation techniques of web applications
SIN '13: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Security of Information and NetworksWeb applications contain vulnerabilities, which may lead to serious security breaches such as stealing of confidential information. To protect against security breaches, it is necessary to understand the detailed steps of attacks and the pros and cons ...
Vulnerabilities of UMTS Access Domain Security Architecture
SNPD '08: Proceedings of the 2008 Ninth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed ComputingThis paper presents vulnerabilities of UMTS access domain security architecture. The security architecture of UMTS offers some protection against known threats including false base station attacks, man-in-the-middle attacks and replay attacks. The ...
Comments