G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property Based Testing: A New Approach to Testing for Assurance. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, pages 74--80, July 1997.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....research on using software testing to identify security aws. The main drawback to these approaches is they require the tester to supply test data that will trigger the aws. Fink et al. developed a method to specify program properties, including security properties, called property based testing [12, 14, 15]. A speci cation T for a program P is written in a language such as TASPEC [13] which relates program locations to the activation of predicates, and speci es the temporal and logical constraints those predicates must satisfy. Rather than specifying the complete behavior of P , T speci es the ....

....null terminated. None of the functions tested with STOBO that have similar semantics were found to be involved with any bu er over ow aws. This provides indirect, empirical evidence that strlcpy( is harder to misuse than strncpy(3) Testing using STOBO is a special case of property based testing[12, 14, 15]. As discussed in section 2.1.1, in property based testing, the tester writes a speci cation that associates code locations with statements of predicate logic. The program under test is then instrumented according to the speci cation. With the speci cation language TASPEC[13] it would not be ....

G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property Based Testing: A New Approach to Testing for Assurance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 22(4), July 1997

....implemented to verify whether the system does actually meet al..l the security requirements. However, it is difficult to specify the requirements and the system in a mathematical form. Other methods for security testing have been developed, including syntax testing [6] property based testing [7], fault injection [8, 9] mutation testing [10] and Gligor s testing method [11] Again these techniques are limited to finding specific security flaws. Also, there are the general testing techniques like path testing, domain testing, and data flow testing [12] However these techniques are not ....

G. Fink and M. Bishop, "Property Based Testing: A New Approach to Testing for Assurance," ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22(4), July 1997.

....will have on the results of the certification process. The code coverage metric by itself will not reveal any security properties of the component. Rather, code coverage analysis is most useful when combined with security oriented testing such as fault injection analysis and property based testing [5, 4]. Fault injection analysis can simulate both programmer flaws as well as malicious attacks against programs while they are executing. Using fault injection analysis for security oriented testing, the effect of programmer flaws on the security of the program and the system it is executing in can be ....

G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property-based testing: A new approach to testing for assurance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22(4), July 1997.

.... employed by UC Davis researchers can analyze software for vulnerability to a class of race condition flaws called time of check to time ofuse (TOCTTOU) flaws [6] Another UC Davis group is using property based assertions and software testing techniques to verify security properties of software [8]. These different research projects are employing techniques developed in other areas of software assurance (reliability, safety, testing) to the difficult problems in assuring security in computer systems. This paper presents the use of fault injection analysis for analyzing vulnerability to ....

G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property-based testing: A new approach to testing for assurance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22(4), July 1997.

....exist. Their conclusion is that a dynamic analyzer will be able to test the environment during execution and warn when an exploitable TOCTTOU binding flaw occurs. Another U.C. Davis group is using property based assertions and software testing techniques to verify security properties of software [8]. Similar to the work presented in this paper, these different research projects are applying techniques developed in other areas of software assurance (reliability, safety, testing) to the difficult problems of assuring security in computer systems. The work presented in this paper is ....

G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property-based testing: A new approach to testing for assurance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22(4), July 1997.

....firms can use. In this section we present an approach and tool that supports the first approach for improving the survivability of the NII, i.e. enabling the development of more survivable system by providing security and survivability assurance technologies during software development. See [3, 1, 8, 7, 6] for other related security oriented testing technologies. In the next section, we describe an approach and tool for assessing the survivability of fielded COTS systems. The approach recognizes that no matter how good (or inadequate) the efforts made to develop more survivable systems are, the ....

G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property-based testing: A new approach to testing for assurance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22(4), July 1997.

No context found.

G. Fink, M. Bishop, Property Based Testing: A New Approach to Testing for Assurance, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 22(4) (July 1997).

....called Fuzz was used to test standard UNIX utilities by giving them input consisting of large, random streams of characters[17] 25 33 of the programs crashed or hung. The dominant causes were problems with pointers and array dereferencing, including buffer overflow flaws. Property based testing [9, 11] checks that programs satisfy certain properties, including security related properties. For example, the property that the program is free of buffer overflow vulnerabilities is applicable to most programs and can be specified in TASPEC. During testing, violations of the specification are ....

....be null terminated. None of the functions tested with STOBO that have similar semantics were found to be involved with any buffer overflow flaws. This provides indirect, empirical evidence that strlcpy is harder to misuse than strncpy. Testing using STOBO is a special case of propertybased testing[9, 11]. In property based testing, the tester writes a specification that associates code locations with specifications in a language called TASPEC[10] The program being tested is then instrumented according to the specification. In TASPEC, a tester can say, instrument all calls to malloc( STOBO ....

G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property based testing: A new approach to testing for assurance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22(4), July 1997.

No context found.

G. Fink and M. Bishop. Property Based Testing: A New Approach to Testing for Assurance. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, pages 74--80, July 1997.

No context found.

George Fink and Matt Bishop. Property-Based Testing: A New Approach to Testing for Assurance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22(4):74--80, July 1997. (Cited on pages 32 and 66.)

No context found.

Matt Bishop George Fink. Property-based testing;a new approach to testing for assurance. In Technical Report CSE-95-15, 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC