SA-11 (1) Developer Security Testing and Evaluation | Static Code Analysis (H) (M)

NIST SP 800-53 (r4) Control:

The organization requires the developer of the information system, system component, or information system service to employ static code analysis tools to identify common flaws and document the results of the analysis.

NIST 800-53 (r4) Supplemental Guidance:

Static code analysis provides a technology and methodology for security reviews. Such analysis can be used to identify security vulnerabilities and enforce security coding practices. Static code analysis is most effective when used early in the development process, when each code change can be automatically scanned for potential weaknesses. Static analysis can provide clear remediation guidance along with defects to enable developers to fix such defects. Evidence of correct implementation of static analysis can include, for example, aggregate defect density for critical defect types, evidence that defects were inspected by developers or security professionals, and evidence that defects were fixed. An excessively high density of ignored findings (commonly referred to as ignored or false positives) indicates a potential problem with the analysis process or tool. In such cases, organizations weigh the validity of the evidence against evidence from other sources.

NIST 800-53 (r5) Discussion:

Static code analysis provides a technology and methodology for security reviews and includes checking for weaknesses in the code as well as for the incorporation of libraries or other included code with known vulnerabilities or that are out-of-date and not supported. Static code analysis can be used to identify vulnerabilities and enforce secure coding practices. It is most effective when used early in the development process, when each code change can automatically be scanned for potential weaknesses. Static code analysis can provide clear remediation guidance and identify defects for developers to fix. Evidence of the correct implementation of static analysis can include aggregate defect density for critical defect types, evidence that defects were inspected by developers or security professionals, and evidence that defects were remediated. A high density of ignored findings, commonly referred to as false positives, indicates a potential problem with the analysis process or the analysis tool. In such cases, organizations weigh the validity of the evidence against evidence from other sources.

38North Guidance:

Meets Minimum Requirement:

• • High and Moderate: The service provider documents in the Continuous Monitoring Plan, how newly developed code for the information system is reviewed.

Best Practice:

• • None.

Unofficial FedRAMP Guidance:

• • None.

Assessment Evidence:

• • Static code analysis reports

CSP Implementation Tips:

• • Amazon Web Services (AWS): None.

  • Microsoft Azure: None.

  • Google Cloud Platform: None.