Software Code Change Monitoring for Event-Driven Security Audits
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The dynamic nature of software development introduces new vulnerabilities that are often undetected until fixed intervals, leading to inefficiencies and resource waste in security audits.
Innovation Solution
A system that iteratively identifies software code elements susceptible to vulnerabilities, using comparative analysis and predefined rules, to determine if a security analysis is needed based on security risk thresholds, optimizing the timing of audits.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Loss of energy
If security audits are conducted at fixed intervals, then resource usage is reduced, but vulnerabilities introduced between audits remain undetected
Solution Approach 1:
The system transitions from static fixed-interval auditing to dynamic continuous monitoring that adapts to code change events. The monitoring system actively tracks code modifications and triggers security analyses only when changes occur, making the auditing process responsive to actual security risks rather than following a rigid schedule.
Solution Approach 2:
The system implements feedback mechanisms by continuously monitoring code changes and using this information to determine when security analyses are needed. The monitoring results feed back into the decision-making process, triggering security analyses based on actual code evolution rather than predetermined schedules.
2Reliability
If security audits are conducted frequently, then vulnerability detection is improved, but time and cost increase significantly
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs partial security monitoring by focusing only on code elements that have changed since the last audit. Instead of re-auditing the entire codebase frequently, it applies security analysis selectively to modified portions, reducing the time and effort required while maintaining effective vulnerability detection.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the parameter of audit frequency from fixed intervals to event-driven triggers. Security analyses are initiated based on code change events rather than time-based schedules, allowing the system to maintain high reliability when changes occur while avoiding unnecessary audits when the code remains stable.
3Measurement precision
If comprehensive security audits are performed, then vulnerability detection accuracy is improved, but productivity of development cycle decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The system extracts and monitors only the specific code elements that have changed since the last security audit. By focusing security analysis on modified code portions rather than the entire codebase, it maintains detection accuracy for vulnerable areas while minimizing the impact on overall development productivity.
Solution Approach 2:
The security monitoring process is segmented into continuous lightweight monitoring and periodic in-depth security analyses. The system continuously tracks code changes with minimal overhead and performs comprehensive security analyses only when triggered by significant changes, separating the monitoring function from the analysis function to maintain development flow.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
The method comprises the steps, performed by at least one processor (510, 560), of: - iteratively identifying (120) in the software code a set of software code elements susceptible to vulnerabilities, at different points in time; - based on a comparative analysis of a first set of software code elements and a second set of software code elements, respectively identified at a first point in time and at a second point in time, where the second point in time corresponds to a current point in time and the first point in time corresponds to a previous point in time, determining if a trigger condition has been met (170: Yes), - in a positive event, determining (180) that the software code needs a security analysis.