Context: Static Application Security Testing Tools (SASTTs) identify software vulnerabilities to support the security and reliability of software applications. Interestingly, several studies have suggested that alternative solutions may be more effective than SASTTs due to their tendency to generate false alarms, commonly referred to as low Precision. Aim: We aim to comprehensively evaluate SASTTs, setting a reliable benchmark for assessing and finding gaps in vulnerability identification mechanisms based on SASTTs or alternatives. Method: Our SASTTs evaluation is based on a controlled, though synthetic, Java codebase. It involves an assessment of 1.5 million test executions, and it features innovative methodological features such as effort-aware accuracy metrics and method-level analysis. Results: Our findings reveal that SASTTs detect a tiny range of vulnerabilities. In contrast to prevailing wisdom, SASTTs exhibit high Precision while falling short in Recall. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that enhancing Recall, alongside expanding the spectrum of detected vulnerability types, should be the primary focus for improving SASTTs or alternative approaches, such as machine learning-based vulnerability identification solutions.

Esposito, M., Falaschi, V., Falessi, D. (2024). An extensive comparison of static application security testing tools. In Proceedings of 2024 28th Internation Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2024) (pp.69-78). New York : Association for Computing Machinery [10.1145/3661167.3661199].

An extensive comparison of static application security testing tools

Matteo Esposito;Valentina Falaschi;Davide Falessi
2024-01-01

Abstract

Context: Static Application Security Testing Tools (SASTTs) identify software vulnerabilities to support the security and reliability of software applications. Interestingly, several studies have suggested that alternative solutions may be more effective than SASTTs due to their tendency to generate false alarms, commonly referred to as low Precision. Aim: We aim to comprehensively evaluate SASTTs, setting a reliable benchmark for assessing and finding gaps in vulnerability identification mechanisms based on SASTTs or alternatives. Method: Our SASTTs evaluation is based on a controlled, though synthetic, Java codebase. It involves an assessment of 1.5 million test executions, and it features innovative methodological features such as effort-aware accuracy metrics and method-level analysis. Results: Our findings reveal that SASTTs detect a tiny range of vulnerabilities. In contrast to prevailing wisdom, SASTTs exhibit high Precision while falling short in Recall. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that enhancing Recall, alongside expanding the spectrum of detected vulnerability types, should be the primary focus for improving SASTTs or alternative approaches, such as machine learning-based vulnerability identification solutions.
28th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2024)
Salerno, Italy
2024
28
Rilevanza internazionale
2024
Settore IINF-05/A - Sistemi di elaborazione delle informazioni
English
Common Vulnerability Exposure
Common Weakness Enumeration
Security Assessment Tool
Static Application Security Testing
Intervento a convegno
Esposito, M., Falaschi, V., Falessi, D. (2024). An extensive comparison of static application security testing tools. In Proceedings of 2024 28th Internation Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2024) (pp.69-78). New York : Association for Computing Machinery [10.1145/3661167.3661199].
Esposito, M; Falaschi, V; Falessi, D
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0950584924000533-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 2.76 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.76 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/394007
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact