Hey there,
> If you couldn't insert "ignore" directives, many people 
> wouldn't use such tools at all, and would release code with 
> vulnerabilities that WOULD be found by such tools.

Of course, much like an IDS, you have to find the baseline and adjust your
ruleset according to the norm, if it is constantly firing on someone
accessing /index.html of your website, then that's working against you. 

I am not disagreeing with the fact the static source analysis is a good
thing, I am just saying that this is a case where it failed (or maybe the
user/developer of it failed or misunderstood it's use). Fair enough that on
this particular list you are going to defend source analysis over any other
method, it is about secure coding after all, but I definitely still strongly
disagree that other methods wouldn't have found this bug. 

Shall we take a look at the customer lists of the big source analyzer
companies, and then cross-map that to the number of vulnerabilities
released? Why are we still finding bugs in software that have the SDL? Why
are we still finding bugs in software that have been analyzed before the
compiler has run? Why are these companies like Fortify charging an arm and a
leg for such a technology when the bughunters are still beating the snot out
of this stuff? You guys all have much more experience on that end, so I am
looking forward to your responses!



Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.

Reply via email to