Security-related rules
The SonarQube Server Quality Model has four different types of rules: Reliability (bug), Maintainability (code smell), Security (vulnerability & hotspot) rules.
The SonarQube Server quality model has four different types of rules: reliability (bug), maintainability (code smell), and security (vulnerability and hotspot) rules.
There are many expectations about security so we will explain some key concepts and write about how the security rules differ from others.
What to expect from security-related rules
As with other types of rules, we try to raise no false positives; you should be confident that anything reported to you as an issue is really an issue.
Under the hood, SonarQube Server is based on different representations of the source code and technologies in order to be able to detect any kind of security issue:
Security-injection rules: There’s a vulnerability here when the inputs handled by your application are controlled by a user (potentially an attacker) and not validated or sanitized. When this occurs, the flow from sources (user-controlled inputs) to sinks (sensitive functions) will be presented. To do this, SonarQube Server uses well-known taint analysis technology on source code which allows, for example, the detection of:
Security-configuration rules: Here there is a security issue because when calling a sensitive function, the wrong parameter (for example invalid cryptographic algorithm or TLS version) has been set or when a check (for example, a check_permissions() kind of function) was not done or not in the correct order, this problem is likely to appear often when the program is executed (no injected/complex attacks are required unlike in the previous category):
These security issues are then divided into two categories: vulnerabilities and hotspots (see the main differences on the Managing Security Hotspots page).
Security hotspots have been introduced for security protections that have no direct impact on the overall application’s security. Most injection rules are vulnerabilities, for example, if a SQL injection is found, it is certain that a fix (input validation) is required, so this is a vulnerability. On the contrary, when creating a cookie, the ‘HttpOnly’ flag is an additional protection level (to reduce the impact when XSS vulnerabilities appear) but it is not always possible to implement or might not be relevant depending on the context of the application: therefore it’s a hotspot.
With hotspots, we want to help developers understand information security risks, threats, impacts, root causes of security issues, and the choice of relevant software protections. In short, we really want to educate developers and help them develop secure, ethical, and privacy-friendly applications.
Which security-standards are covered
Our security rules are classified according to well-established security standards such as:
OWASP Top 10 (versions 2021 and 2017)
OWASP Top 10 security standards covered by Sonar for version 2021
Category
Python
JS/TS
Java
C#
C/C++
PHP
A01:Broken Access Control
A02: Cryptographic Failures
A03: Injection
A04: Insecure Design
A05: Security Misconfiguration
A06: Vulnerable and Outdated Components
A07: Identification and Authentication Failures
A08: Software and Data Integrity Failures
A09: Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
A10: Server-Side Request Forgery
CWE Top 25 (versions 2023, 2022, and 2021)
CWE Top 25 security standards covered by Sonar for version 2023
Category
Python
JS/TS
Java
C#
C/C++
PHP
CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (‘Cross-site Scripting’)
CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (‘SQL Injection’)
CWE-416: Use After Free
CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (‘OS Command Injection’)
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’)
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CWE-434: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
CWE-287: Improper Authentication
CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound
CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (‘Command Injection’)
CWE-119: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
CWE-798: Use of Hard-coded Credentials
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization (‘Race Condition’)
CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code (‘Code Injection’)
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
CWE-276: Incorrect Default Permissions
PCI DSS (versions 4.0 and 3.2.1)
You can search for a rule on rules.sonarsource.com. The standards to which a rule relates will be listed in the See section at the bottom of the rule description. Some detailed examples of Java vulnerabilities are listed here:
Java-vulnerability-issue-type: all vulnerability rules for Java language.
Java-hotspots-issue-type: all security-hotspot rules for Java language.
Java-tag-injection: all security-injection rules for Java language (not supported in SonarQube Community Build).
How to propose new security rules
Security is a lively world where new types of attacks and vulnerabilities appear very often, so we welcome any suggestions for new security rules. You can read the Adding coding rules page to see how to develop a new rule or propose a new one on our Community forum.
Regarding the security-injection rules mentioned above, it’s possible to extend the taint analysis configuration which allows the SonarQube Server engine to use new sources, sanitizers, validators and sinks within the homemade frameworks that you use. Security engine custom configuration is available as part of the Enterprise Edition and above.
Last updated
Was this helpful?