{"id":{"repo_id":"mit","oai_identifier":"oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/18025"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/mit/oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/18025","repository":{"repo_id":"mit","name":"MIT","base_url":"https://dspace.mit.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Securing software : an evaluation of static source code analyzers","abstract":"This thesis evaluated five static analysis tools--Polyspace C Verifier, ARCHER, BOON, Splint, and UNO--using 14 code examples that illustrated actual buffer overflow vulnerabilities found in various versions of Sendmail, BIND, and WU-FTPD. Each code example included a \"BAD\" case with one or more buffer overflow vulnerabilities and a \"PATCHED\" case without buffer overflows. The buffer overflows varied and included stack, heap, bss and data buffers; access above and below buffer bounds; access using pointers, indices, and functions; and scope differences between buffer creation and use. Detection rates for the \"BAD\" examples were low except for Splint and PolySpace C Verifier, which had average detection rates of 57% and 87% respectively. However, average false alarm rates, as measured using the \"PATCHED\" programs, were high for these two systems. The frequency of false alarms per lines of code was high for both of these tools; Splint gave on average one false alarm per 50 lines of code, and PolySpace gave on average one false alarm per 10 lines of code. This result shows that current approaches can detect buffer overflows, but that false alarm rates need to be lowered substantially.","abstract_html":"This thesis evaluated five static analysis tools--Polyspace C Verifier, ARCHER, BOON, Splint, and UNO--using 14 code examples that illustrated actual buffer overflow vulnerabilities found in various versions of Sendmail, BIND, and WU-FTPD. Each code example included a "BAD" case with one or more buffer overflow vulnerabilities and a "PATCHED" case without buffer overflows. The buffer overflows varied and included stack, heap, bss and data buffers; access above and below buffer bounds; access using pointers, indices, and functions; and scope differences between buffer creation and use. Detection rates for the "BAD" examples were low except for Splint and PolySpace C Verifier, which had average detection rates of 57% and 87% respectively. However, average false alarm rates, as measured using the "PATCHED" programs, were high for these two systems. The frequency of false alarms per lines of code was high for both of these tools; Splint gave on average one false alarm per 50 lines of code, and PolySpace gave on average one false alarm per 10 lines of code. This result shows that current approaches can detect buffer overflows, but that false alarm rates need to be lowered substantially.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Zitser, Misha, 1979-"],"institution":"Massachusetts Institute of Technology","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Richard Lippmann."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2003,"date_issued":"2003","date_published":"2003","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:21:27Z","subjects":["Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission."],"rights_urls":["http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/18025","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Richard Lippmann."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.other","label":"Dc Contributor Other","values":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Zitser, Misha, 1979-"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2005-06-02T19:40:34Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2005-06-02T19:40:34Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2003"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission."]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/18025"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Thesis (M. Eng.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2003.","Includes bibliographical references (leaves 100-105)."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis evaluated five static analysis tools--Polyspace C Verifier, ARCHER, BOON, Splint, and UNO--using 14 code examples that illustrated actual buffer overflow vulnerabilities found in various versions of Sendmail, BIND, and WU-FTPD. Each code example included a \"BAD\" case with one or more buffer overflow vulnerabilities and a \"PATCHED\" case without buffer overflows. The buffer overflows varied and included stack, heap, bss and data buffers; access above and below buffer bounds; access using pointers, indices, and functions; and scope differences between buffer creation and use. Detection rates for the \"BAD\" examples were low except for Splint and PolySpace C Verifier, which had average detection rates of 57% and 87% respectively. However, average false alarm rates, as measured using the \"PATCHED\" programs, were high for these two systems. The frequency of false alarms per lines of code was high for both of these tools; Splint gave on average one false alarm per 50 lines of code, and PolySpace gave on average one false alarm per 10 lines of code. This result shows that current approaches can detect buffer overflows, but that false alarm rates need to be lowered substantially."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["M.Eng."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Securing software : an evaluation of static source code analyzers"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Richard Lippmann."],"dc:contributor.department":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."],"dc:contributor.other":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."],"dc:creator":["Zitser, Misha, 1979-"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2005-06-02T19:40:34Z"],"dc:date.available":["2005-06-02T19:40:34Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2003"],"dc:description":["Thesis (M. Eng.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2003.","Includes bibliographical references (leaves 100-105)."],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis evaluated five static analysis tools--Polyspace C Verifier, ARCHER, BOON, Splint, and UNO--using 14 code examples that illustrated actual buffer overflow vulnerabilities found in various versions of Sendmail, BIND, and WU-FTPD. Each code example included a \"BAD\" case with one or more buffer overflow vulnerabilities and a \"PATCHED\" case without buffer overflows. The buffer overflows varied and included stack, heap, bss and data buffers; access above and below buffer bounds; access using pointers, indices, and functions; and scope differences between buffer creation and use. Detection rates for the \"BAD\" examples were low except for Splint and PolySpace C Verifier, which had average detection rates of 57% and 87% respectively. However, average false alarm rates, as measured using the \"PATCHED\" programs, were high for these two systems. The frequency of false alarms per lines of code was high for both of these tools; Splint gave on average one false alarm per 50 lines of code, and PolySpace gave on average one false alarm per 10 lines of code. This result shows that current approaches can detect buffer overflows, but that false alarm rates need to be lowered substantially."],"dc:description.degree":["M.Eng."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/18025"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:publisher":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology"],"dc:rights":["M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission."],"dc:rights.uri":["http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582"],"dc:subject":["Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."],"dc:title":["Securing software : an evaluation of static source code analyzers"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:21:27Z"}