Static Code Analysis in CI: Rules Configuration, Triage, and Fixes Quiz

Test your understanding of static code analysis in continuous integration, focusing on configuring analysis rules, triaging false positives, and resolving issues like unsafe input handling and insecure defaults. This quiz is designed to help you assess your knowledge of best practices for static analysis in modern development workflows.

1. Understanding Static Code Analysis

   Which of the following best describes static code analysis when integrated into a CI pipeline?

   1. It analyzes source code for vulnerabilities without executing the code.
   2. It measures the performance of code during high-load simulations.
   3. It checks for hardware compatibility of the deployed application.
   4. It runs the program and monitors its output for errors during runtime.

   Explanation: Static code analysis inspects source code without running it, allowing early detection of issues in a CI pipeline. Dynamic analysis involves running the code, which is not the case for static tools. Checking hardware compatibility and measuring performance are unrelated to static analysis and are more relevant to deployment or performance testing.

2. Configuring Rules for Security

   Why is it important to configure static analysis rules to detect unsafe input validation in a CI environment?

   1. To ensure security breaches are prevented early in the development process.
   2. To guarantee all variables are global.
   3. To check for hardware device drivers.
   4. To improve network throughput of applications.

   Explanation: Setting up rules for unsafe input validation helps catch potential security weaknesses before software is deployed. While detecting device drivers, network throughput, or enforcing global variables are unrelated or incorrect, the primary benefit of such rules is early prevention of vulnerabilities within CI.

3. Triaging Findings

   When reviewing static analysis results, what does triaging false positives involve?

   1. Reducing the number of users accessing the system.
   2. Identifying and disregarding issues incorrectly flagged as problems.
   3. Automatically fixing all coding mistakes without review.
   4. Testing the application on physical devices.

   Explanation: Triaging false positives is the process of recognizing which findings are not actual issues, allowing teams to focus on real problems. Automatically fixing mistakes without review is impractical and risky. Testing on devices and changing user access are unrelated to static analysis triage.

4. Handling Insecure Defaults

   Which scenario best illustrates an insecure default that a static code analysis tool might flag?

   1. A configuration file that sets passwords to 'admin' by default.
   2. Using uppercase letters for variable names.
   3. Increasing the font size in a code editor.
   4. Commenting code for improved readability.

   Explanation: Setting default passwords to common values like 'admin' is insecure and may be detected by static analysis. Comments, variable naming standards, and editor preferences do not represent insecure defaults and are not flagged as such by static analysis tools.

5. Common Unsafe Input Pattern

   A static code analyzer warns about directly using user input in a database query. What is the risk in this scenario?

   1. The code causes syntax highlighting to fail.
   2. The program will always crash on startup.
   3. The application may be vulnerable to injection attacks.
   4. The user interface will not display correctly.

   Explanation: Directly using user input in queries can lead to injection attacks, a serious security flaw. Syntax highlighting, application crashes, or UI display issues are not directly caused by this unsafe input pattern.

6. CI Pipeline and Static Analysis Timing

   At which stage of a CI pipeline is running static code analysis most beneficial?

   1. When the application is archived.
   2. After deployment to production.
   3. Before merging code into the main branch.
   4. During hardware testing cycles.

   Explanation: Running static analysis before merging allows issues to be detected and fixed early, helping maintain code quality. After deployment is too late to catch pre-release issues. Hardware testing and archiving are separate processes and not directly related to static analysis.

7. Custom Rule Configuration

   If your team often faces security issues related to file permissions, which static analysis configuration would be most effective?

   1. Enable or write rules specifically checking for unsafe file permission settings.
   2. Ignore file permission settings in the rule set.
   3. Configure only style-related rules.
   4. Disable all security rules to pass the build faster.

   Explanation: Tailoring rules to detect permission issues addresses your team’s key weakness. Disabling security rules, ignoring permissions, or focusing solely on style-related rules leaves vulnerabilities unchecked.

8. Interpreting False Positives

   If a static analysis tool flags a piece of code that properly sanitizes user input as unsafe, what should the developer do next?

   1. Ignore the finding without investigation.
   2. Delete all user input handling code.
   3. Remove the static analysis tool from the process.
   4. Review the code and mark the finding as a false positive if appropriate.

   Explanation: Developers should carefully review flagged code and mark it as a false positive if it is safe. Deleting input handling, ignoring findings without checking, or removing the analysis tool are not responsible actions and could lead to security risks.

9. Priority of Fixing Findings

   When prioritizing issues found by static code analysis, which type of findings should typically be addressed first?

   1. Minor formatting issues, such as indentation.
   2. Misspelled comments.
   3. Unused variable warnings.
   4. High-severity vulnerabilities, like insecure input handling.

   Explanation: High-severity vulnerabilities present significant risk and should be fixed before cosmetic issues. Formatting, unused variables, and misspelled comments have little or no impact on security or functionality.

10. Resolving Unsafe Input Code Example

    If a function concatenates user input directly into an SQL statement, what is a safer alternative?

    1. Use parameterized queries or prepared statements.
    2. Increase the function's recursion depth.
    3. Shorten the function name.
    4. Move the user input to a global constant.

    Explanation: Parameterized queries or prepared statements ensure user input is handled safely, preventing injection attacks. Increasing recursion, renaming the function, or using global constants do not address the core risk of unsafe input.

11. Benefit of Rule Customization

    What is one main benefit of customizing static analysis rules for your codebase?

    1. It speeds up physical hardware deployment.
    2. It automatically writes documentation.
    3. It guarantees all bugs will be found.
    4. It reduces irrelevant warnings and focuses on real project risks.

    Explanation: Custom rules tailor analysis to your codebase, making results more relevant and useful. No tool can guarantee detection of all bugs, generate documentation autonomously, or impact hardware deployment speed directly.

12. Recognizing Insecure Defaults

    Which of these default settings should be avoided and is likely to be flagged by static analysis for being insecure?

    1. Allowing unrestricted external network access by default.
    2. Setting language to English.
    3. Enabling dark mode for users.
    4. Using a white background in user interfaces.

    Explanation: Allowing open external network access invites security threats and is flagged as insecure, while language, background color, and dark mode do not impact security and are not relevant to static analysis.

13. Handling a Large Number of Findings

    What should a team do if a static code analysis tool generates an overwhelming number of findings in their CI pipeline?

    1. Only review the findings every few years.
    2. Ignore all findings to focus on development speed.
    3. Disable the static analysis tool permanently.
    4. Prioritize and fix the most critical issues first, then gradually address others.

    Explanation: Tackling critical issues first improves security and code quality over time without overwhelming the team. Ignoring, disabling, or rarely reviewing findings can leave many vulnerabilities and problems unaddressed.

14. Example of a False Positive

    A tool flags a method for using a supposedly insecure algorithm, but further review shows the method is never called. What is this an example of?

    1. A hardware bottleneck.
    2. A false positive in static analysis.
    3. A correctly ignored warning.
    4. A system boot error.

    Explanation: Finding unused but flagged code is a classic false positive. System boot errors and hardware bottlenecks are unrelated, and ignoring a warning is not the same as identifying a false positive.

15. Fixing Insecure Defaults in Code

    After detecting an insecure default in a code configuration, such as open access permissions, what is a correct remediation?

    1. Rename variables in the configuration file.
    2. Increase the file size artificially.
    3. Change the default to a more restrictive, secure value.
    4. Document the insecure default but make no code changes.

    Explanation: Making defaults secure ensures a safer baseline for all installations and uses. Only documenting the problem, renaming variables, or altering file size do not solve the security issue posed by insecure defaults.

16. Integrating Static Analysis into CI

    Which is a best practice when introducing static code analysis into a CI pipeline?

    1. Remove static analysis if any errors are found.
    2. Only run analysis after every major product release.
    3. Enable all available rules at once without review.
    4. Start with a sensible set of rules and adjust them as the codebase evolves.

    Explanation: Starting with a relevant ruleset and refining it over time prevents developer overload and ensures focus on important issues. Enabling all rules at once or removing analysis due to errors can cause confusion and missed vulnerabilities, and running analysis infrequently reduces its effectiveness.