Secure software development is a challenging task requiring consideration of many possible threats and mitigations. This paper investigates how and why programmers, despite a baseline of security experience, make security-relevant errors. To do this, we conducted an in-depth analysis of 94 submissions to a secure-programming contest designed to mimic real-world constraints: correctness, performance, and security. In addition to writing secure code, participants were asked to search for vulnerabilities in other teams’ programs; in total, teams submitted 866 exploits against the submissions we considered. Over an intensive six-month period, we used iterative open coding to manually, but systematically, characterize each submitted project and vulnerability (including vulnerabilities we identified ourselves). We labeled vulnerabilities by type, attacker control allowed, and ease of exploitation, and projects according to security implementation strategy. Several patterns emerged. For example, simple mistakes were least common: only 21% of projects introduced such an error. Conversely, vulnerabilities arising from a misunderstanding of security concepts were significantly more common, appearing in 78% of projects. Our results have implications for improving secure-programming APIs, API documentation, vulnerability-finding tools, and security education.
more »
« less
Understanding security mistakes developers make: Qualitative analysis from Build It, Break It, Fix It
Secure software development is a challenging task requiring consideration of many possible threats and mitigations.This paper investigates how and why programmers, despite a baseline of security experience, make security-relevant errors.To do this, we conducted an in-depth analysis of 94 submissions to a secure-programming contest designed to mimic real-world constraints: correctness, performance, and security.In addition to writing secure code, participants were asked to search for vulnerabilities in other teams’ programs; in total, teams submitted 866 exploits against the submissions we considered. Over an intensive six-month period, we used iterative open coding to manually, but systematically, characterize each submitted project and vulnerability (including vulnerabilities we identified ourselves). We labeled vulnerabilities by type, attacker control allowed, and ease of exploitation,and projects according to security implementation strategy.Several patterns emerged. For example, simple mistakes were least common: only 21% of projects introduced such an error.Conversely, vulnerabilities arising from a misunderstanding of security concepts were significantly more common, appearing in 78% of projects. Our results have implications for improving secure-programming APIs, API documentation,vulnerability-finding tools, and security education.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1801545
- PAR ID:
- 10272997
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- USENIX Security Symposium
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Security vulnerabilities in an application open the ways to security dangers and attacks, which can easily jeopardize the system executing that application. Therefore, it is important to develop vulnerability-free applications. The best approach would be to counteract against potential vulnerabilities during the coding with secure programming practices. Software security proactive control education for secure portable and web application advancement is of enormous interests in the Information Technology (IT) fields. In this paper, we proposed and developed innovative learning modules for software security proactive control based on several real-world scenarios to broaden and promote proactive control for secure software development in computing education.more » « less
-
Nowadays, cyberattack incidents are happening on a daily basis. As a result, the demand for a larger and more challenging workforce is increasing. To handle this demand, academic institutions offer cybersecurity courses and degree programs into their curricula; however, more efforts are needed to address the high demand of the cybersecurity workforce. This work aims to bridge the gap between workforce shortage and the number of qualified graduates to fill the positions. We approach this by introducing cybersecurity concepts at the early stage of undergraduate curricula of computer science and engineering programs. Secure programming is critical as many cybersecurity incidents happen due to software vulnerabilities. However, most UG-level programming courses pay little attention to secure programming practices. As a result, many students graduate with limited knowledge of security vulnerabilities that might plague the developed software. Our goal in this work is to introduce secure programming at introductory level programming courses so that students should be aware of cybersecurity issues and use this security mindset in advanced level courses and projects in their degree programs. To accomplish this goal, we developed intuitive and interactive modules emphasizing secure programming in C++ and Java courses to help students become secure software developers. These modules will be used alongside the coursework to emphasize certain vulnerabilities within the programming environment of a specific language and allow students to learn cybersecurity topics, enforcing a solid foundation and understanding. We developed cybersecurity educational modules for C++ and Java as they are amongst the popular languages and used in introductory programming courses. While designing these modules, we kept in mind that the topics must be relevant to real-world issues in the software industry. We used a variety of resources and benchmarks to ensure the authenticity of our chosen topics, including Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) and Common Vulnerability and Exposures (CVE). While choosing module topics to develop, we had some restrictions. For example, the topics must be introductory and easy to understand. These modules are geared towards freshman or sophomore-level UG students who have just started programming. The developed security modules have four components: power-point slides, lab description, code template for the lab, and complete solution. The complete solution for each module will be provided to the instructors to check students’ work if they adopt the modules in their courses. The modules developed for a C++ programming course include labs on input validation, integer overflow, random number generation, function call with incorrect argument type, and dangling pointers. In Java, we developed lab modules for input validation, integer overflow, null object reference, random number generator, and data encapsulation.more » « less
-
The use of third-party libraries to manage software complexity can expose open source software projects to vulnerabilities. However, project owners do not currently have a standard way to enable private disclosure of potential security vulnerabilities. This neglect may be caused in part by having no template to follow for disclosing such vulnerabilities. We analyzed 600 GitHub projects to determine how many projects contained a vulnerable dependency and whether the projects had a process in place to privately communicate security issues. We found that 385 out of 600 open source Java projects contained at least one vulnerable dependency, and only 13 of those 385 projects had a security vulnerability reporting process. That is, 96.6% of the projects with a vulnerability did not have a security notification process in place to allow for private disclosure. In determining whether the projects even had contact information publicly available, we found that 19.8% had no contact information publicly available, let alone a security vulnerability reporting process. We suggest two methods to allow for community members to privately disclose potential security vulnerabilities.more » « less
-
Penetration testing is a key practice toward engineering secure software. Malicious actors have many tactics at their disposal, and software engineers need to know what tactics attackers will prioritize in the first few hours of an attack. Projects like MITRE ATT&CK™ provide knowledge, but how do people actually deploy this knowledge in real situations? A penetration testing competition provides a realistic, controlled environment with which to measure and compare the efficacy of attackers. In this work, we examine the details of vulnerability discovery and attacker behavior with the goal of improving existing vulnerability assessment processes using data from the 2019 Collegiate Penetration Testing Competition (CPTC). We constructed 98 timelines of vulnerability discovery and exploits for 37 unique vulnerabilities discovered by 10 teams of penetration testers. We grouped related vulnerabilities together by mapping to Common Weakness Enumerations and MITRE ATT&CK™. We found that (1) vulnerabilities related to improper resource control (e.g., session fixation) are discovered faster and more often, as well as exploited faster, than vulnerabilities related to improper access control (e.g., weak password requirements), (2) there is a clear process followed by penetration testers of discovery/collection to lateral movement/pre-attack. Our methodology facilitates quicker analysis of vulnerabilities in future CPTC events.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
