Advertisement

Static Analysis of String Values

  • Giulia Costantini
  • Pietro Ferrara
  • Agostino Cortesi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6991)

Abstract

In this paper we propose a unifying approach for the static analysis of string values based on abstract interpretation, and we present several abstract domains that track different types of information. In this way, the analysis can be tuned at different levels of precision and efficiency, and it can address specific properties.

Keywords

String Operator Abstract Interpretation Type Graph Abstract Domain Tree Automaton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Christensen, A., Moller, A., Schwartzbach, M.: Precise analysis of string expressions. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) SAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2694, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cortesi, A., Zanioli, M.: Widening and narrowing operators for abstract interpretation. Computer Languages, Systems and Structures 37(1), 24–42 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Costantini, G.: Abstract domains for static analysis of strings. Master’s thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL 1977. ACM, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: POPL 1979. ACM, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, J., Mauborgne, L., Miné, A., Monniaux, D., Rival, X.: The ASTREÉ analyzer. In: Sagiv, M. (ed.) ESOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3444, pp. 21–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P., Halbwachs, N.: Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In: Proceedings of POPL 1978. ACM Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doh, K., Kim, H., Schmidt, D.: Abstract parsing: Static analysis of dynamically generated string output using LR-parsing technology. In: Palsberg, J., Su, Z. (eds.) SAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5673, pp. 256–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrara, P.: Static type analysis of pattern matching by abstract interpretation. In: Hatcliff, J., Zucca, E. (eds.) FMOODS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6117, pp. 186–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gould, C., Su, Z., Devanbu, P.: Static checking of dynamically generated queries in database applications. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2004, pp. 645–654. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Granger, P.: Static analysis of linear congruence equalities among variables of a program. In: Abramsky, S. (ed.) CAAP 1991 and TAPSOFT 1991. LNCS, vol. 493, pp. 169–192. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gulwani, S.: Automating string processing in spreadsheets using input-output examples. In: Proceedings of POPL 2011. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hooimeijer, P., Veanes, M.: An evaluation of automata algorithms for string analysis. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 248–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hosoya, H., Pierce, B.: Xduce: A statically typed xml processing language. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 3(2), 117–148 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janssens, G., Bruynooghe, M.: Deriving description of possible values of program variables by means of abstract interpretation. Journal of Logic Programming 13(2-3), 205–258 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, S.-W., Choe, K.-M.: String analysis as an abstract interpretation. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 294–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M.: Pentagons: A weakly relational domain for the efficient validation of array accesses. In: Proceedings of SAC 2008. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minamide, Y.: Static approximation of dynamically generated web pages. In: Proceedings of WWW 2005, pp. 432–441. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miné, A.: The octagon abstract domain. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halder, R., Cortesi, A.: Obfuscation-based analysis of sql injection attacks. In: IEEE (ed.) Proceedings of ISCC 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tabuchi, N., Sumii, E., Yonezawa, A.: Regular expression types for strings in a text processing language. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 75 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thiemann, P.: Grammar-based analysis of string expressions. In: Proceedings of TLDI 2005, pp. 59–70. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Hentenryck, P., Cortesi, A., Le Charlier, B.: Type analysis of prolog using type graphs. Journal of Logic Programming 22(3), 179–208 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu, F., Bultan, T., Cova, M., Ibarra, O.: Symbolic string verification: An automata-based approach. In: Havelund, K., Majumdar, R. (eds.) SPIN 2008. LNCS, vol. 5156, pp. 306–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulia Costantini
    • 1
  • Pietro Ferrara
    • 2
  • Agostino Cortesi
    • 1
  1. 1.University Ca’ Foscari of VeniceItaly
  2. 2.ETH ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations