Secure source code review is a complex process involving manual or automated analysis of an application’s source code in order to assess any potential vulnerability in the code.
SECURE SOURCE CODE REVIEW
Secure source code review is a complex process involving manual or automated analysis of an application’s source code in order to assess any potential vulnerability in the code. The source code review services team review the application code for vulnerabilities and categorize the finding based on the weakness categories such as logic flaw, authentication, authorization, etc.
A rating is defined for each finding based on the risk and impact on the application as Critical, High, Medium, Low, Informational, etc. Conducting secure code reviews is possibly one of the most effective techniques to identify the vulnerability of applications early in the development life cycle, thereby, reducing the risk of any breach later on. Secure code review also ensures and helps developers to conduct a secure development.
A Secure source code review function is very similar to a code functionality review. Functionality reviews are standard in almost every organization that operates a development team which makes the concept for secure code reviews much easier.
MANUAL VS AUTOMATED
Source code review can be broadly classified into automated and manual approaches and then further categorized within each approach. In manual review, a source code review services team examines the code line by line, looking for defects and security-related flaws. An automated review uses a tool to scan the application’s source code and report potential flaws and vulnerabilities.
Manual review is mostly more difficult and tedious than automated testing, and unlike automated testing, it requires the same investment every time that it is performed in order to produce similar coverage. It requires a significant amount of expertise to be implemented correctly. Manual source code review skills require years of experience to be proficient.
A manual review in depth can often unravel and examine codes for vulnerabilities that would otherwise be lost or misunderstood by automated scanning tools. As manual review requires a lot of time, it is often an issue for organizations when it comes to large code review. Automated reviews solve this issue associated with manual review. Automated tools allow for repeatable tests done rapidly and at a large scale.
A single automated tool can be proved to be efficient for certain types of vulnerabilities but might miss some other types of vulnerabilities. Implementing certain tools simultaneously can overcome this kind of issue.
There are various categories of automated security testing tools, some of the most common ones are mentioned below
STATIC ANALYSIS SECURITY TESTING TOOLS (SAST)
Static analysis is a method of inspecting and analyzing either source code or the compiled intermediate language or binary component for flaws. It should be done early in the development lifecycle. Apart from safeguarding the organization’s applications from external attacks, it is vital to look at the application’s software build to detect errors and defects. SAST is most commonly integrated into build automation to spot vulnerabilities each time the application is built or packaged; however, some are integrated into the developer environment to discover certain flaws as the developer is actively coding.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS SECURITY TESTING TOOLS (DAST)
Dynamic application security testing (DAST) detect security vulnerability in a running state of an application. DAST tests run against the fully compiled or packaged software as it runs, and therefore dynamic analysis is able to test scenarios that are only apparent when all of the components are integrated. DAST mimics real-world attack scenarios and provides a dynamic analysis of complex modern applications.
DAST is good at finding externally visible issues and vulnerabilities, and it makes it easy to confirm by providing the URL. DAST has limitations as it is much slower than SAST and can only test against functionality it can determine.
IMPORTANCE OF SOURCE CODE REVIEW
Secure source code reviews can be performed early in the application development lifecycle, as opposed to several other methods. The proper time to review code for security vulnerabilities is once the architecture behind the code commit has been properly reviewed.
Secure source code reviews have one huge advantage over other software security verification methodologies: reviewers can analyze and examine every single line of code and therefore every single aspect of the software. Using secure code review it is potentially possible to detect every single flaw in the software. This is something no other verification method is able to carry out.
Secure source code review provides the developers with an unbiased pair of eyes that may detect otherwise unknown bugs and architecture flaws that are missed by developers.
For organizations that do not implement many security development practices, secure code review is a useful technique to classify existing vulnerabilities in the applications or services and serve as a scope to guide initial security investments and efforts, or to assist in advising a decision on whether or not to use third-party components and software.
SECURE CODING PRACTICES
Secure coding practice is a standard that helps to ensure the coding practices, techniques, and decisions that developers make while building software. The main aim is to ensure that developers write code that minimizes security vulnerabilities. It involves writing code in a way that avoids potential security vulnerabilities.
OWASP provides a checklist for secure coding practices that includes 14 areas to consider in your software development life cycle.
SUMMARY
Walnut Security Services provides secure source code review services by a team of highly skilled security professionals. We have the experience, processes, and technology to go beyond simple vulnerability scans and provide deep-dive secure source code analysis. It is our core competence and will deliver satisfaction.
