Tag: software assurance

Lately, software supply chains find themselves in a very interesting and uncomfortable position—the industry spotlight—and not in a good way. While significant and costly breaches such as  SolarWinds or Kaseya make front-page news, supply chain attack tactics (e.g. typosquatting or dependency confusion) that target package managers such as npm, PyPI or WinGet can poison downstream applications or compromise developer credentials.  

The software engineering community has been steadily increasing its use of third-party and open source solutions to help create new offerings. In fact, over the last five years, there has been a 259% increase in the use of open source.

One reason for this is the simple fact that creating new applications takes time and can strain budgets that are already tight. With open source code, software engineers gain fast access to pre-existing code that’s already demonstrated a proven ability to address the very unique challenge they are looking to solve. By removing the need to reinvent the wheel, the development timeframe is accelerated, the costs are lowered and teams are freed to focus on the creation of new and unique features that the customers demand.

At this point, turning to third-party code may seem like a no-brainer. However, it can also open the door to potential risks. This is especially true with engineers who, rather than checking software to ensure it is secure and compliant, take the providers’ assurances as gospel. 

They are not alone. Other groups will try to conduct their initial due diligence at the onset if that’s possible. Soon after they then ease into a “set it and forget it” approach, where they fail to update the code over time. As a result, while the code may appear secure initially, vulnerabilities can emerge over time, and if the software is not continually updated, bad actors can leverage an unprotected window of opportunity. In fact, according to Enterprise Security Group’s “Modern Application Development Security” eBook, 48% of organizations regularly push vulnerable code. The same research also found that 60 percent of organizations have had production application vulnerabilities exploited.

Organizations conduct static application security testing (SAST) and dynamic application security testing (DAST) to assess pre-production code vulnerabilities. They will also scan with AV before releasing software, examine signing certificates, and code quality. Yet, despite these efforts, they remain challenged by gaps in security processes and the ability to sufficiently inspect large, complex and multi-layered software packages. What’s missing is the ability to conduct in-depth analysis to pinpoint behavioral differences between compiled software versions.  

Malicious tampering can often involve changing how the software interacts with the system on which it is deployed.  Differential behavior analysis highlighted below makes it easier to detect those unusual changes. For example, having an application suddenly add a pre-install script that downloads files via certutil is highly unusual. If the addition was planned, reasons for the change would be well documented and it would be associated with a significant new feature. For this type of change to happen in any other scenario is suspicious and deserves further investigation before the software is released. In this case, such action would have caught ua-parser-js developer’s account compromise.

With the software supply chain at risk and with shared code the new normal, what’s needed is software assurance. 

Software assurance allows teams to inspect every application layer within an installation package for the presence of software tampering, malware and other indicators of software supply chain attacks.   

Begin the software assurance process with the deep inspection step through recursive package decomposition. The resulting software bill of materials (SBOM) becomes so much more than a build manifest (a list of components that should be in the final build). It becomes the means to determine exactly which components have unacceptable build quality or those that contain unwanted software behaviors. This enables developers to verify the code they are working with and take appropriate action to protect their customers and partners from the majority of software risks. These assessments include:

• Software grading: The software package and every included component can be graded based on the types and severity of security issues found. Using a grading system makes it easy for software buyers to gauge the level of risk posed by a software package and determine whether additional deployment measures can be taken to mitigate those risks. For developers, component grading makes it easier to prioritize their remediation efforts and aids in the selection of higher-quality third-party components.  
• Application hardening: Activating specific build or compiler options can mitigate vulnerabilities and protect applications against attack—but only if they are implemented correctly. Assessing whether these mitigations are correctly implemented ensures that these protection mechanisms will work as expected. 
• Binary behavior analysis: This allows teams to fully understand how each software component interacts with the system on which it will run. The ability to understand third-party component behaviors, even when developers have no access to the source code, delivers a more comprehensive understanding of supply chain risks. Checking for unusual software behaviors or unexpected behavioral changes between one version and the next is often the only way to identify software tampering by a malicious actor. The ability to have this final check before distribution enables software developers to validate that the software being released is trustworthy.

For companies that are using software to create business value or producing software that is mission-critical for their customers, turning a blind eye or making software assurance assumptions can no longer be tolerated. In today’s climate where increasingly sophisticated threats loom, inspecting software and monitoring updates for signs of tampering, malicious or unwanted additions is essential and must become a part of standard software development practice.