Analyzer Draft

[tagyieh]

Analyzer Draft

This PR is a work in progress to implement an analyzer for the existing MAL compiler, described in this issue. It is a continuation of the previous analyzer draft, which can be found here.

Implementation

malVisitor in mal_visitor.py will use an analyzer malAnalyzerInterface. The visit method is overridden in malVisitor in order to call the checker-methods in the malAnalyzerInterface (if defined).

Analyzer Implementation

Language Constituents

Constituent	Implemented	Tested	Reviewed
Define
Include
Category
Asset
Extends
Abstract asset
User info
Developer info
Modeler info
Let
Association
Field
Step

MAL Symbols

Constituent	Implemented	Tested	Reviewed
Leads to (->)
Append (+>)
OR-step (|)
AND-step (&)
Defense (#)
Existence (E)
Non-existence (!E)
Require (<-)
TypeOf ([])
Union (\/)
Intersection (\/)
Difference (-)
Collect Operator (X.A)
Transitive Operator (X*.A)
Let Substitution (X().A)
Hidden Step (@​hidden)	-	-
Debug Step (@​debug)	-	-
Trace Origin (@​trace)	-	-
Risk Type (AS {C, I, A})
Time to Compromise (TTC)

Notes/Possible checks

• Can an Asset with the same name be defined twice?
• Can we use a same include more then once? (Risk of circular dependency) Can "id" or "version" be defined more than once/with different values?
• Should the state of the analyzer be synchronous between all files when using include?
• Should we allow two detectors on the same asset with the same name?
• Should we allow an empty detector context?
• Should we allow assets in the detector context that do not exist?
• Should we a class that extends another belong to the same category as the parent?
• Can a category be defined more than once?
• Given the documentation, the only allowed metas are 'developer', 'users' and 'modelers'. Should we check if the metas fall under one of these three categories?

[nkakouros]

Can an Asset with the same name be defined twice?

Isn't there a check in the java analyzer? I think in MAL it does not make sense to allow the same labels to be used twice, either in associations, assets or let-variables.

Can we use a same include more then once? (Risk of circular dependency)

Probably yes, we want to support this. Circular dependencies may be possible to capture and report to the user as error.

Can "id" or "version" be defined more than once/with different values?

Isn't there a check in the java analyzer? In this case, I think yes, as that would make possible to extend a whole language (that has its own version and id).

Should the state of the analyzer be synchronous between all files when using include?

What do you mean here? I think the analyzer should keep track of assets, etc across all files (starting from main.mal) so that it can properly check things. Also, check my changes on the visitor class, moving it to __init__.py and the loading of files here. Compare it with what is in the main branch and your branch. It would be nice if you could extract the relevant bits from there into a separate commit that you push here. The detector stuff, disregard for the time being.

Should we allow two detectors on the same asset with the same name?
Should we allow an empty detector context?
Should we allow assets in the detector context that do not exist?

Don't care about detectors for the time being.

Should we a class that extends another belong to the same category as the parent?

@andrewbwm Do you have any input here?

Can a category be defined more than once?

I think yes, and we should merge. @andrewbwm

Given the documentation, the only allowed metas are 'developer', 'users' and 'modelers'. Should we check if the metas fall under one of these three categories?

Probably not, there are lots of custom metas that we don't want to break.

[nkakouros]

@tagyieh Resolve the conflicts too.