PVS-Studio VS Cppcheck

PVS-Studio Reviews

Cppcheck Reviews

PVS-Studio mentions (9)

• Bugs that buzzed a lot

  One of the ways to create better and more secure code is to use static analyzers such as PVS-Studio. The tool provides code analysis for the C, C++, C#, and Java programming languages. - Source: dev.to / 11 days ago

• Examining suspicious code fragments in AWS SDK for .NET

  I checked the code with the PVS-Studio analyzer using the plugin for Visual Studio. - Source: dev.to / 10 months ago

• Do developers care about code security?

  I'm working on PVS-Studio. It's a code analysis tool detects both coding errors and security flaws (SAST). So, I'd like to know more about what teams expect from SAST solutions. Source: 12 months ago

• SAST in Secure SDLC: 3 reasons to integrate it in a DevSecOps pipeline

  And yet SAST is another essential step-up that can help reduce reputational and financial risks. If you are building SSDLC, SAST tools should be a mandatory part of the DevSecOps pipeline. - Source: dev.to / about 2 years ago

• Vulnerabilities due to XML files processing: XXE in C# applications in theory and in practice

  Since the project is open-source, we'll take advantage of this. To search for vulnerabilities, in addition to our own knowledge, we use PVS-Studio — a solution that searches for errors and security weaknesses. We need a group of security-related diagnostics — OWASP. You can read about turning on the corresponding warnings here. - Source: dev.to / about 2 years ago

Cppcheck mentions (10)

• Configuring Cppcheck, Cpplint, and JSON Lint

  I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end. - Source: dev.to / about 2 months ago

• Enforcing Memory Safety?

  Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code. Source: 11 months ago

• Static Code analysis

  For my own projects, I used cppcheck. You can check out that tool to get a feel. Depending on what industry your in, you might need to follow a standard like Misra. Source: about 1 year ago

• How do you not shoot yourself in the foot ?

  Https://cppcheck.sourceforge.io/ (there are many other static analysis tools, I just haven't used them or didn't care for them). Source: about 1 year ago

• Linting tool for prohibiting the use of specific std types

  Sounds like something that could simply be communicated with the team that writes the tests. Unless you have dozens of such classes. In that case, you could just use e.g. Cppcheck and add a rule (regular expression) that searches for usages of the forbidden classes. Source: over 1 year ago