To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (a basic version)
Enterprise License (extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Free PVS-Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at

If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

PVS-Studio 7.10 release: OWASP, AUTOSAR…

PVS-Studio 7.10 release: OWASP, AUTOSAR, SARIF

Nov 11 2020

We develop PVS-Studio not only as a classic code analyzer, but also in the direction of Security and Safety. In this regard, we've started working on the support of the OWASP and AUTOSAR C++14 standards. To facilitate PVS-Studio integration into other code quality control tools, we supported analyzer results conversion to the SARIF format. Implemented 22 new diagnostics for C, C++, C#, and Java. You will learn more about these and other new features in this press release.


While the world is fighting against viruses, we are tackling bugs and potential vulnerabilities. To make the fight more effective, we've been developing the following directions for this PVS-Studio release:

  • security (SAST);
  • safety;
  • integration;
  • new diagnostics.


The PVS-Studio analyzer is a SAST (Static Application Security Testing) tool that helps identify potential vulnerabilities and zero-day threats. For the convenience of security specialists, we have long classified PVS-Studio warnings according to the CWE list and the SEI CERT standard.

The next step was to support the OWASP ASVS standard. We still have work to do to better support detection of potential vulnerability patterns described in OWASP. However, starting with PVS-Studio 7.10, you can already get acquainted with the OWASP diagnostics mapping table. The table is not that extended so far, but it will be gradually updated.


Standards such as MISRA C and MISRA C++ are used to ensure the quality and reliability of software. They are most often used when developing software for embedded devices. You can read more about these standards in the article "What is MISRA and how to cook it".

However, the MISRA C++ standard is already quite deprecated and is not meant for modern versions of the C++ programming language. Therefore, it is replaced by the AUTOSAR C++14 Coding Guidelines.

In addition to MISRA, we decided to start supporting this newer standard. The first work in this direction was carried out for PVS-Studio 7.10. The mapping table for PVS-Studio and AUTOSAR warnings is available here. As with other standards, we will gradually expand support of the AUTOSAR standard.


Utilities for converting PVS-Studio analysis results (PlogConverter.exe for Windows and plog-converter for Linux\macOS) now support conversion to SARIF (Static Analysis Results Interchange Format).

SARIF is a universal open format for presenting the results of tools that search for errors, safety and security defects. This format is supported by many static analyzers and allows you to combine various code quality control tools in a single ecosystem.

Support of handling analysis results when checking projects for Unreal Engine is added in the PVS-Studio plugin for JetBrains Rider (JetBrains Rider for Unreal Engine is now available under the early access program).

SonarQube PVS-Studio plugin can now associate analyzer messages that have a CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) identifier with messages about security defects in the Security Category tab.

New diagnostics

C, C++

  • V830. Decreased performance. Consider replacing the use of 'std::optional::value()' with either the '*' or '->' operator.
  • V831. Decreased performance. Consider replacing the call to the 'at()' method with the 'operator[]'.
  • V1064. The left operand of integer division is less than the right one. The result will always be zero.
  • V1065. Expression can be simplified: check similar operands.
  • V1066. The 'SysFreeString' function should be called only for objects of the 'BSTR' type.
  • V1067. Throwing from exception constructor may lead to unexpected behavior.


  • V3156. The argument of the method is not expected to be null.
  • V3157. Suspicious division. Absolute value of the left operand is less than the right operand.
  • V3158. Suspicious division. Absolute values of both operands are equal.
  • V3159. Modified value of the operand is not used after the increment/decrement operation.
  • V3160. Argument of incorrect type is passed to the 'Enum.HasFlag' method.
  • V3161. Comparing value type variables with 'ReferenceEquals' is incorrect because compared values will be boxed.
  • V3162. Suspicious return of an always empty collection.
  • V3163. An exception handling block does not contain any code.
  • V3164. Exception classes should be publicly accessible.


  • V6093. Automatic unboxing of a variable may cause NullPointerException.
  • V6094. The expression was implicitly cast from integer type to real type. Consider utilizing an explicit type cast to avoid the loss of a fractional part.
  • V6095. Thread.sleep() inside synchronized block/method may cause decreased performance.
  • V6096. An odd precise comparison. Consider using a comparison with defined precision: Math.abs(A - B) < Epsilon or Math.abs(A - B) > Epsilon.
  • V6097. Lowercase 'L' at the end of a long literal can be mistaken for '1'.
  • V6098. A method does not override another method from the base class.
  • V6099. The initial value of the index in the nested loop equals 'i'. Consider using 'i + 1' instead.

Additional links

Mapping tables of PVS-Studio diagnostics to different standards:

Recent posts in our blog that I'd like to draw your attention to:

Popular related articles
Free PVS-Studio for those who develops open source projects

Date: Dec 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

On the New 2019 year's eve, a PVS-Studio team decided to make a nice gift for all contributors of open-source projects hosted on GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket. They are given free usage of PVS-Studio s…
PVS-Studio for Java

Date: Jan 17 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

In the seventh version of the PVS-Studio static analyzer, we added support of the Java language. It's time for a brief story of how we've started making support of the Java language, how far we've co…
Technologies used in the PVS-Studio code analyzer for finding bugs and potential vulnerabilities

Date: Nov 21 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

A brief description of technologies used in the PVS-Studio tool, which let us effectively detect a large number of error patterns and potential vulnerabilities. The article describes the implementati…
PVS-Studio ROI

Date: Jan 30 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

Occasionally, we're asked a question, what monetary value the company will receive from using PVS-Studio. We decided to draw up a response in the form of an article and provide tables, which will sho…
The Evil within the Comparison Functions

Date: May 19 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Perhaps, readers remember my article titled "Last line effect". It describes a pattern I've once noticed: in most cases programmers make an error in the last line of similar text blocks. Now I want t…
How PVS-Studio Proved to Be More Attentive Than Three and a Half Programmers

Date: Oct 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

Just like other static analyzers, PVS-Studio often produces false positives. What you are about to read is a short story where I'll tell you how PVS-Studio proved, just one more time, to be more atte…
Appreciate Static Code Analysis!

Date: Oct 16 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

I am really astonished by the capabilities of static code analysis even though I am one of the developers of PVS-Studio analyzer myself. The tool surprised me the other day as it turned out to be sma…
Static analysis as part of the development process in Unreal Engine

Date: Jun 27 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Unreal Engine continues to develop as new code is added and previously written code is changed. What is the inevitable consequence of ongoing development in a project? The emergence of new bugs in th…
The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

Date: Apr 14 2016

Author: Andrey Karpov

Yes, you've guessed correctly - the answer is "42". In this article you will find 42 recommendations about coding in C++ that can help a programmer avoid a lot of errors, save time and effort. The au…
The way static analyzers fight against false positives, and why they do it

Date: Mar 20 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

In my previous article I wrote that I don't like the approach of evaluating the efficiency of static analyzers with the help of synthetic tests. In that article, I give the example of a code fragment…

Comments (0)

Next comments
This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →