3.9 Article

A Web services vulnerability testing approach based on combinatorial mutation and SOAP message mutation

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s11761-013-0139-1

关键词

Web services testing; SOAP message mutation; Combinatorial testing; Mutation operator; Vulnerability testing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61202110, 61063013]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2012284]
  3. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [2010322 7120005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The testing of Web services is an essential aspect of their quality assurance, however, because this testing often involves injecting only one mutant at one time, some vulnerability faults cannot be detected. To address this, the current paper presents a set of mutation operators that can be combined and defines the corresponding combinatorial strategies based on data perturbation and combinatorial testing. Based on this, multiple mutants can be injected at one time to help uncover interactive faults. To improve testing efficiency and effectiveness, a combinatorial testing approach focusing on Web service vulnerability is proposed: Firstly, initial test data are generated with perturbation techniques based on Web Services Description Language documents and Simple Object Access Protocol messages. Then, a combinatorial testing cases generation (CTCG) algorithm is used to generate the final combinatorial test data according to the proposed strategies. Furthermore, for some special Web services in which there is only one parameter or one method in service interface, a fuzzy mutation approach algorithm, as a complementary approach to CTCG, is also proposed. Finally, some testing experiments are conducted to verify the effectiveness of the proposed approaches in an integrated testing platform. The experiments show that proposed approaches are both feasible and effective: They can find more vulnerability faults than the traditional approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据