In today’s interconnected world, embedded software security has far-reaching implications. This is particularly so for safety-critical applications in sectors such as automotive and aerospace, where software vulnerabilities can lead to consequences that go far beyond financial losses, including physical harm and loss of life. Ensuring the security of embedded software from the earliest stages of development has become a priority for organizations and is often known as ‘shift feft’.
Why embedded software security matters
From cars to planes, medical devices, and home appliances, embedded software essentially acts as the brain that enables these systems to manage operations that often have direct implications for human safety. A security flaw in these systems can lead to malfunctions, unauthorized control, or even catastrophic failures.
For instance, in the automotive industry, modern vehicles are essentially data centers on wheels. Their embedded systems control everything from braking to steering and airbags. This is the same in the aerospace sector, where embedded software is responsible for countless critical functions in both commercial airliners and advanced military aircraft. A software problem could compromise navigation systems, communication, or even propulsion systems.
As a result, organizations are increasingly adopting a proactive approach and integrating security earlier in the software development lifecycle (SDLC). However, this transition is not without its challenges. Moving away from retroactive measures to a more preventative approach, like the bi-directional integration of static application security testing (SAST) into developer’s continuous integration/continuous development (CI/CD) pipelines, is not without its friction and obstacles.
The mechanics behind bi-directional integration
When developers make code changes and push them to the version control system, the CI/CD pipeline initiates automated builds and tests. Meanwhile, code analysis by SAST tools can detect potential vulnerabilities, coding errors, and checks for adherence to coding standards. Each result is tagged with identifiers, making it traceable to its origin in the code base.
In addition, SAST doesn’t just perform passive scans. It actively enforces security policies tailored to an organization’s unique requirements. These can range from rules for password management, data encryption, or the handling of sensitive information. If any policy violations are detected during the scan, these findings are communicated back to the CI/CD pipeline, which can then decide whether to approve or halt the pipeline.
The integration of SAST into the CI/CD pipeline enables early detection of bugs and vulnerabilities means that security becomes an inherent part of the software, not just an afterthought. This proactive approach ensures developers receive timely feedback, helping them address issues immediately, rather than after a product is released to the market. It fosters a culture of continuous improvement where developers are constantly nudged towards best practices.
Furthermore, there’s an undeniable cost advantage. Detecting and remediating issues early in the development process is significantly cheaper than responding to a full-blown security vulnerability that is discovered in shipping products. In industries where the margin for error is razor thin, such as aerospace or automotive, this approach isn’t just beneficial; it’s critical for preventing potentially catastrophic outcomes.
Overcoming the challenge of SAST deployment
Yet, adopting bi-directional integration between SAST and CI/CD pipelines is not without challenges. Some SAST tools can be complex to deploy and require a comprehensive understanding of CI/CD processes, while others can impact performance by consuming considerable resources from the software development team in interpreting the output of the tools. There’s also the risk of high false positives rates that can send developers on time-consuming wild goose chases.
To overcome these potential pitfalls, here are some of the capabilities to look for when evaluating SAST tools:
- Flexible workflow integration: that relies on git basics such as branching, pull requests, and merging, regardless of the CI/CD system of choice (GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, Gerrit) or the business model (ultimate, enterprise, freemium).
- CI/CD integration: with the ability to trigger a SAST scan within a workflow that offloads the processing to a Kubernetes cluster that instantiates a container dedicated to analyzing the current code context. Results from this analysis should be fed back into the CI/CD system and the developer’s IDE (integrated development environment).
- Analysis offload to Kubernetes cluster: using a set of runners for any number of developers. This can even be set up remotely or locally and provide rapid analysis to an entire organization. Analysis is typically done in containers, ensuring flexibility and scalability.
- Focused warnings: should prioritize the most recent changes, so developers can work on the most relevant issues first. Other results can be viewed if needed.
Integrating SAST into CI/CD pipelines bi-directionally embeds proactive security capabilities earlier within software development workflows. As organizations move down the path to shifting security left, collaboration between developers, security teams, and other stakeholders holds the key to unlocking its full potential.
https://www.embedded.com/why-integrate-static-application-security-testing-into-your-system/a>