Advertisement

Source Codes Classification Using a Modified Instruction Count Pass

  • Omar DarwishEmail author
  • Majdi Maabreh
  • Ola Karajeh
  • Belal Alsinglawi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 927)

Abstract

The vulnerability is a flaw in the system’s implementation which may result in severe consequences. The existence of these flaws should be detected and managed. There are several types of research which provide different solutions to detect these flaws through static analysis of the original source codes. Static analysis process has many disadvantages, some of them are; slower than compilation and produce high false positive rate. In this project, we introduce a prediction technique using the output of one of the LLVM passes; “InstCount”. A classifier was built based on the output of this pass on 500 source codes written in C and C++ languages with 88% of accuracy. A comparison between our classifier and Clang static analyzer showed that the classifier super performed to predict the existence of memory leak and Null pointers. The experiment also showed that this classifier could be applied or integrated with static analysis tools for more efficient results.

References

  1. 1.
    Hughes, J., Cybenko, G.: Three tenets for secure cyber-physical system design and assessment. In: Cyber Sensing 2014, vol. 9097, p. 90970A. International Society for Optics and Photonics (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eigler, F.C.: Mudflap: Pointer use checking for C/C++ (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Clang Static Analyzer. http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/
  5. 5.
    The LLVM Compiler. Infrastructure. http://llvm.org/
  6. 6.
    Viega, J., Bloch, J.T., Kohno, Y., McGraw, G.: Its4: a static vulnerability scanner for C and C++ code. In: 16th Annual Conference on Computer Security Applications, ACSAC 2000, pp. 257–267. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shin, Y., Williams, L.: Is complexity really the enemy of software security? In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Quality of Protection, pp. 47–50. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chowdhury, I., Zulkernine, M.: Using complexity, coupling, and cohesion metrics as early indicators of vulnerabilities. J. Syst. Architect. 57(3), 294–313 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mizuno, O., Ikami, S., Nakaichi, S., Kikuno, T.: Spam filter based approach for finding fault-prone software modules. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, p. 4. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aversano, L., Cerulo, L., Del Grosso, C.: Learning from bug-introducing changes to prevent fault prone code. In: Ninth International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution: in Conjunction with the 6th ESEC/FSE Joint Meeting, pp. 19–26. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scandariato, R., Walden, J., Hovsepyan, A., Joosen, W.: Predicting vulnerable software components via text mining. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40(10), 993–1006 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology. http://www.nist.gov
  13. 13.
    Mathematics Source Library C & ASM. http://www.mymathlib.com

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omar Darwish
    • 1
    Email author
  • Majdi Maabreh
    • 2
  • Ola Karajeh
    • 3
  • Belal Alsinglawi
    • 4
  1. 1.Computer Information System DepartmentFerrum CollegeFerrumUSA
  2. 2.Computer Information System DepartmentHashemite UniversityZarqaJordan
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.Western Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations