2009
DOI: 10.1587/transinf.e92.d.548
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Deployment of Dynamic Taint Analysis for Application Communities

Abstract: SUMMARYAlthough software-attack detection via dynamic taint analysis (DTA) supports high coverage of program execution, it prohibitively degrades the performance of the monitored program. This letter explores the possibility of collaborative dynamic taint analysis among members of an application community (AC): instead of full monitoring for every request at every instance of the AC, each member uses DTA for some fraction of the incoming requests, thereby loosening the burden of heavyweight monitoring. Our exp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When source code is available, we will insert the instrumentation through source-code transformations [16], [17]. Otherwise, we will inject our instrumentation in program binaries using the PIN binary rewriting tool (which is neither as efficient nor as effective, due to the various challenges in working with binaries) [18], [4]. The specific vulnerability types we are protecting against include number handling, error handling, concurrency handling, memory safety errors (e.g., buffer overflows/underflows), null pointer and tainted data/input validation errors.…”
Section: Research Directionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When source code is available, we will insert the instrumentation through source-code transformations [16], [17]. Otherwise, we will inject our instrumentation in program binaries using the PIN binary rewriting tool (which is neither as efficient nor as effective, due to the various challenges in working with binaries) [18], [4]. The specific vulnerability types we are protecting against include number handling, error handling, concurrency handling, memory safety errors (e.g., buffer overflows/underflows), null pointer and tainted data/input validation errors.…”
Section: Research Directionmentioning
confidence: 99%