Security development lifecycle

By S. Lipner. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit - DuD, 2010

535 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1ff151f4cf0b57a8399baed2e76d6c03c68e9f43

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

SAGE: Whitebox Fuzzing for Security Testing (2012, methodology): “At Microsoft, fuzzing is mandatory for every untrusted interface of every product, as prescribed in the Security Development Lifecycle, 7 which documents recom mendations on how to develop secure software.”
GenProg: A Generic Method for Automatic Software Repair (2012, background): “To this end, Microsoft requires that security-critical changes be subject to 100,000 fuzz inputs [42] (i.”
Build It, Break It, Fix It: Contesting Secure Development (2016, background): “es for secure development. The BSIMM (“building security in” maturity model) [12] collects information from companies and places it within a taxonomy. Microsoft’s Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) [35] describes possible strategies for incorporating security concerns into the development process.”
HardFails: Insights into Software-Exploitable Hardware Bugs (2019, methodology): “Bugs #9, 10, 11, 16, 26, and 28 are such examples.”
An Attack Surface Metric (2011, methodology): “Howard’s measurement method is already used in a regular basis as part of Microsoft’s Security Development Lifecycle [43].”
A privacy threat analysis framework: supporting the elicitation and fulfillment of privacy requirements (2011, methodology): “Table 1 Security concerns with corresponding security threats and DFD elements susceptible to threats (DF-Data flow, DS-Data store, P-Process, E-External entity), proposed by the Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) [3] To identify which threats are applicable to a specific system , threat tree patt”