Static vs Dynamic Code Analysis: Security Testing Essentials Quiz

Explore the key differences between static and dynamic code analysis for security testing. This quiz helps you understand the methods, strengths, and limitations of these essential application security approaches.

1. Scope of Detection

   Which type of code analysis is more effective at detecting vulnerabilities in code before the application is executed, such as missing input validation in source files?

   1. Static code analysis
   2. Dynamic code analysis
   3. Manual code review
   4. Unit testing

   Explanation: Static code analysis examines the source or byte code without executing the program, making it well-suited for catching vulnerabilities like missing input checks early in development. Dynamic code analysis, on the other hand, operates on running applications and may miss issues present in unreachable code. Manual code review is reliant on human inspection, while unit testing focuses on functional correctness, not direct vulnerability detection.

2. Runtime Environment Requirement

   When comparing static and dynamic code analysis, which approach requires a running application in a test environment to effectively find security issues?

   1. Static code analysis
   2. Dynamic code analysis
   3. Syntax validation
   4. Configuration scanning

   Explanation: Dynamic code analysis involves executing the application in a controlled environment to observe real-time behaviors and identify runtime vulnerabilities like injection attacks. Static code analysis does not need code execution and examines files directly. Syntax validation checks for correct coding structure, and configuration scanning inspects settings or files, not running code.

3. False Positives and Negatives

   Which is a common drawback of static code analysis in security testing, especially when scanning large codebases?

   1. It may generate false positives by flagging safe code as risky
   2. It cannot identify any vulnerabilities in third-party libraries
   3. It always requires user credentials
   4. It produces no output logs

   Explanation: Static code analysis can result in false positives, highlighting code patterns as vulnerabilities even if they're safe, particularly in complex or unfamiliar codebases. While it might have limitations analyzing third-party binaries, it's incorrect to say it cannot identify any vulnerabilities. Requirement of user credentials is not a characteristic of static analysis, and output logging is a standard capability rather than a drawback.

4. Type of Vulnerabilities Detected

   Dynamic code analysis is particularly helpful for finding which type of security weaknesses that only manifest during application execution, such as authentication bypasses under certain conditions?

   1. Logic flaws occurring at runtime
   2. Typo errors in variable names
   3. Improper code formatting
   4. Missed documentation comments

   Explanation: Dynamic code analysis is ideal for uncovering runtime logic flaws like conditional authentication bypasses, which are only apparent when the application is running. Typos, code formatting, and missing comments do not relate to running behavior or security flaws, and are more aligned with static analysis or code quality checks.

5. Strengths and Limitations

   Why is combining static and dynamic code analysis typically recommended for comprehensive security testing?

   1. Each method identifies different types of vulnerabilities and complements the other
   2. Both methods produce identical results and redundancy is key
   3. Neither method requires technical expertise
   4. Static analysis is only for legacy systems, dynamic only for new ones

   Explanation: Using both static and dynamic analysis covers a broader range of vulnerabilities: static finds design flaws and insecure code patterns early, while dynamic exposes runtime issues. They do not yield identical results; redundancy is not their main benefit. Technical expertise is required for both, and neither method is exclusively tied to the age of the system.