Which technique injects invalid or unexpected inputs into an application to determine its reaction?

Which technique injects invalid or unexpected inputs into an application to determine its reaction?

• A. Sandbox
• B. Code Signing
• C. Software Assurance
• D. Fuzzer

Answer: (D)

Fuzz testing involves feeding a program with invalid or unexpected inputs and observing how it behaves. An automated fuzzer generates large amounts of malformed or random data and runs the application, watching for crashes, hangs, or other faults, as well as unusual behavior that could reveal security vulnerabilities or robustness issues. This approach is especially effective for uncovering input validation problems, memory corruption, and logic errors that might not appear with typical test cases. The other concepts have different roles: a sandbox provides an isolated environment to run code, code signing ensures software authenticity and integrity, and software assurance covers the broader practice of creating secure software.

Fuzz testing involves feeding a program with invalid or unexpected inputs and observing how it behaves. An automated fuzzer generates large amounts of malformed or random data and runs the application, watching for crashes, hangs, or other faults, as well as unusual behavior that could reveal security vulnerabilities or robustness issues. This approach is especially effective for uncovering input validation problems, memory corruption, and logic errors that might not appear with typical test cases. The other concepts have different roles: a sandbox provides an isolated environment to run code, code signing ensures software authenticity and integrity, and software assurance covers the broader practice of creating secure software.