All, The question of "Is my answer going to be high-enough resolution to support manual review?" or "...to support a developer fixing the problem?" comes down to "it depends". And, as we all know, I simply can't resist an "it depends" kind of subtlety.
Yes, Jim, if you're doing a pure JavaSE application, and you don't care about non-standards compilers (jikes, gcj, etc.), then the source and the binary are largely equivalent (at least in terms of resolution).... Larry mentioned gcj. Ease of parsing, however, is a different story (for instance, actual dependencies are way easier to pull out of a binary than the source code, whereas stack-local variable names are easiest in source). Where you care about "a whole web application" rather than a pure-Java module, you have to concern yourself with JSP and all the other MVC technologies. Placing aside the topic of XML-based configuration files, you'll want to know what (container) your JSPs were compiled to target. In this case, source code is different than binary. Similar factors sneak themselves in across the Java platform. Then you've got the world of Aspect Oriented programming. Spring and a broader class of packages that use AspectJ to weave code into your application will dramatically change the face of your binary. To get the same resolution out of your source code, you must in essence 'apply' those point cuts yourself... Getting binary-quality resolution from source code therefore means predicting what transforms will occur at what point-cut locations. I doubt highly any source-based approach will get this thoroughly correct. Finally, from the perspective of dynamic analysis, one must consider the post-compiler transforms that occur. Java involves both JIT and Hotspot (using two hotspot compilers: client and server, each of which conducting different transforms), which neither binary nor source-code-based static analysis are likely to correctly predict or account for. The binary image that runs is simply not that which is fed to classloader.defineClass[] as a bytestream. ...and (actually) finally, one of my favorite code-review techniques is to ask for both a .war/ear/jar file AND the source code. This almost invariable get's a double-take, but it's worth the trouble. How many times do you think a web.xml match between the two? What exposure might you report if they were identical? ... What might you test for If they're dramatically different? Ah... Good times, ---- John Steven Senior Director; Advanced Technology Consulting Direct: (703) 404-5726 Cell: (703) 727-4034 Key fingerprint = 4772 F7F3 1019 4668 62AD 94B0 AE7F EEF4 62D5 F908 Blog: http://www.cigital.com/justiceleague Papers: http://www.cigital.com/papers/jsteven http://www.cigital.com Software Confidence. Achieved. On 7/28/09 4:36 PM, "ljknews" <ljkn...@mac.com> wrote: At 8:39 AM -1000 7/28/09, Jim Manico wrote: > A quick note, in the Java world (obfuscation aside), the source and > "binary" is really the same thing. The fact that Fortify analizes > source and Veracode analizes class files is a fairly minor detail. It seems to me that would only be true for those using a Java bytecode engine, not those using a Java compiler that creates machine code. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________
