I was commenting on the dishonesty in lobbying for legally mandated static analysis with "cyber security" as an underlying argument.
I think this is a total bullshit argument.
Static analysis is good at removing a large number of low-hanging fruit when it comes to both reliability and security bugs. But: Static analysis alone fails to significantly increase the resilience of real-world systems against determined attacks (although it may increase the resilience to really casual attacks).
So I think it is good & sane to mandate static analysis for some pieces of code for reliability reasons. I'd rather fly in an airplane with formally verified avionics code.
The reality is though that even the most sophisticated static analysis systems nowadays are not terribly good at dealing with dynamically allocated memory, suffer from grotesque overapproximation as a result of summarizing dynamically allocated memory, and in general don't deal with many common programming patterns very well.
Avionics code without dynamic memory allocation and a team of people getting a static analyzer going profits a lot from static analysis. The browser that I am typing this in profits much less: It uses a gazillion programming idioms that are notoriously hard to analyze. No existing and generally available static analysis will significantly impact the difficulty of finding a remotely exploitable bug in this browser.
So, in short: Using SA can have great benefits in particular scenarios. Verifying an avionics system is a great example. Verifying a microkernel that allows me to safely sandbox my terribly buggy browser is another example. Mandating SA for general software development is insanity, though: The current state of research (let's not even speak about available products) isn't capable of impacting the resiliency (against determined attack) of a browser or document viewer significantly. Let's not kid ourselves: The technology just isn't there, and won't be for another few years.
