MUTEC: Mutation-based testing of Cross Site Scripting
IWSESS '09 Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Secure Systems
Towards benchmarking the trustworthiness of web applications code
EWDC '11 Proceedings of the 13th European Workshop on Dependable Computing
Security mutation testing of the FileZilla FTP server
Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
Testing and assessing web vulnerability scanners for persistent SQL injection attacks
Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Security and Privacy Preserving in e-Societies
Mitigating program security vulnerabilities: Approaches and challenges
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Let's parse to prevent pwnage invited position paper
LEET'12 Proceedings of the 5th USENIX conference on Large-Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Web applications are typically developed with hard time constraints and are often deployed with security vulnerabilities. Automatic web vulnerability scanners can help to locate these vulnerabilities and are popular tools among developers of web applications. Their purpose is to stress the application from the attacker's point of view by issuing a huge amount of interaction within it. Two of the most widely spread and dangerous vulnerabilities in web applications are SQL injection and Cross Site Scripting (XSS), because of the damage they may cause to the victim business. Trusting the results of web vulnerability scanning tools is of utmost importance. Without a clear idea on the coverage and false positive rate of these tools, it is difficult to judge the relevance of the results they provide. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare key figures of merit of web vulnerability scanners. In this paper we propose a method to evaluate and benchmark automatic web vulnerability scanners using software fault injection techniques. The most common types of software faults are injected in the web application code which is then checked by the scanners. The results are compared by analyzing coverage of vulnerability detection and false positives. Three leading commercial scanning tools are evaluated and the results show that in general the coverage is low and the percentage of false positives is very high.