This is one of the places where the third set of components comes into play and can be a real differentiator between SAST applications.
#Bash grep true false code#
These types of issues come from asking too much of the SAST application and we should focus on locating vulnerable code patterns - leaving it to people to vet and sort the findings. In those cases, engineers are then left with the subjective question of whether to classify a finding as a true or false positive where an application’s users can execute arbitrary code in an application, that they’d need to be fully and properly authenticated and authorized to do. However, for these types of apps, it’s their primary purpose. In most environments, this is the worst possible scenario. For example, systems administration applications which executes shell commands, via parameters passed in a web request. Things are even more complicated for applications that incorporate vulnerable code patterns by design. Some engineers might say a true positive is a demonstrably exploitable condition, while others would say matching the vulnerable pattern is all that matters, regardless of the broader context. This leads to our first issue when attempting to quantitatively measure how good a SAST tool is - what defines true/false or positives/negatives? On one hand, you might get a tool that doesn’t find the bug you know is in the code (a false negative - FN) or on the other, it might return a bunch of useless supposed findings that are either lacking any real impact or potentially just plain wrong (a false positive - FP). The rules are usually the source of most SAST complaints because ultimately, we all hope ideally that the tool produces perfect results, but that’s unrealistic. SAST backgroundĪ SAST tool generally consists of a few components 1) a lexer/parser to make sense of the language, 2) rules which process the output produced by the lexer/parser to find vulnerabilities and 3) tools to manage the output from the rules (tracking/ticketing, vulnerability classification, explanation text, prioritization, scheduling, third-party integrations, etc). We have decided to share our results here. That said, our client’s use case is not the same as ours, so what works for us, may not work well for them. On the other hand, CodeQL hadn’t gained much traction for our internal purposes given the strict licensing around consulting. Many of our engineers had already been using Semgrep frequently, so we were reasonably familiar with it.
#Bash grep true false free#
CodeQL “is free for research and open source” projects and accepts open source contributions to its libraries and queries, but is not free for most companies.
Semgrep is open source and free (with premium options). Recently, a client of ours asked us to put R2c’s Semgrep in a head-to-head test with GitHub’s CodeQL. Comparing Semgrep and CodeQL - Posted by Anthony Trummer Introduction
0 kommentar(er)
