Comparing Effectiveness and Efficiency of Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) and Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) Tools in a Large Java-based System
Abstract: Security resources are scarce, and practitioners need guidance in the effective and efficient usage of techniques and tools available in the cybersecurity industry. Two emerging tool types, Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) and Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP), have not been thoroughly evaluated against well-established counterparts such as Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and Static Application Security Testing (SAST). The goal of this research is to aid practitioners in making informed choices about the use of Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) and Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) tools through an analysis of their effectiveness and efficiency in comparison with different vulnerability detection and prevention techniques and tools. We apply IAST and RASP on OpenMRS, an open-source Java-based online application. We compare the efficiency and effectiveness of IAST and RASP with techniques applied on OpenMRS in prior work. We measure efficiency and effectiveness in terms of the number and type of vulnerabilities detected and prevented per hour. Our study shows IAST performed relatively well compared to other techniques, performing second-best in both efficiency and effectiveness. IAST detected eight Top-10 OWASP security risks compared to nine by SMPT and seven for EMPT, DAST, and SAST. IAST found more vulnerabilities than SMPT. The efficiency of IAST (2.14 VpH) is second to only EMPT (2.22 VpH). These findings imply that our study benefited from using IAST when conducting black-box security testing. In the context of a large, enterprise-scale web application such as OpenMRS, RASP does not replace vulnerability detection, while IAST is a powerful tool that complements other techniques.
- doi:10.1109/ICSGEA.2019.00131.
- doi:10.1109/CINTI.2016.7846383.
- doi:10.1109/PRDC.2009.54.
- doi:10.32604/cmc.2020.010885.
- doi:10.1109/ISSRE.2013.6698898.
- doi:10.1109/PRDC.2007.55.
- doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14215-4_7.
- doi:10.1002/spe.2870.
- doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3315595.
- doi:10.1145/3584714.3584723. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3584714.3584723
- doi:10.1109/ICOIACT50329.2020.9332116.
- doi:10.22152/programming-journal.org/2022/6/1. URL https://doi.org/10.22152\%2Fprogramming-journal.org\%2F2022\%2F6\%2F1
- doi:10.1145/988672.988679. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988679
- doi:10.1145/2465478.2465479. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2465478.2465479
- doi:10.1145/2593929.2593945. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2593929.2593945
- MITRE, Cwe common weakness enumeration (website) (2022). URL https://cwe.mitre.org/
- doi:10.1109/Agile.2015.12.
- doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1808.09700. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09700
- doi:https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.500-326.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.