A corpus of 291 small C-program test cases was developed to evaluate static and dynamic analysis tools designed to detect buffer overflows. The corpus was designed and labeled using a new, comprehensive buffer overflow taxonomy. It provides a benchmark to measure detection, false alarm, and confusion rates of tools, and also suggests areas for tool enhancement. Experiments with five tools demonstrate that some modern static analysis tools can accurately detect overflows in simple test cases but that others have serious limitations. For example, PolySpace demonstrated a superior detection rate, missing only one detection. Its performance could be enhanced if extremely long run times were reduced, and false alarms were eliminated for some C library functions. ARCHER performed well with no false alarms whatsoever. It could be enhanced by improving inter-procedural analysis and handling of C library functions. Splint detected significantly fewer overflows and exhibited the highest false alarm rate. Improvements in loop handling and reductions in false alarm rate would make it a much more useful tool. UNO had no false alarms, but missed overflows in roughly half of all test cases. It would need improvement in many areas to become a useful tool. BOON provided the worst performance. It did not detect overflows well in string functions, even though this was a design goal.