Both for its simplicity and efficiency to search for the most critical security vulnerabilities that could exist within a web application, a web vulnerability scanner is a popular tool among any company that develops a web application. With the existence of many different scanners that are available to use, one is unlikely the same as the other and the results attained when evaluating these scanners in relation to each other are often not the same. In this thesis, three different open source web vulnerability scanners are evaluated and analysed based on their ability to find SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. The scanners were used on several open source deliberately broken web applications that acted as benchmarks. The benchmarks that caused much diversity in the results from the scanners were further investigated. When analysing the scanners based on the results, both the actual results were analysed on what caused the diversity but most of all the source code of the scanners were explored and investigated. It could be found that the techniques used by the scanners were essentially similar but contained several minor differences that caused the diversity in the results. Most differences were dependant on the variation of the predefined payloads injected by the scanners, but it could also be found that the approaches used to determine if a vulnerability was detected or not could vary as well. The finalised result concluded in a report that reveals and demonstrates the different approaches that any web vulnerability scanner could use and the limitations of them.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:liu-177606 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Matti, Erik |
| Publisher | Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för datavetenskap |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.2565 seconds