[Owasp-leaders] Owasp Source Code Flaws Top 10 Project
daniel.cuthbert at owasp.org
Mon Dec 15 13:24:15 EST 2008
I disagree slightly.
The problem I've noticed on the banking side is that you often have
multiple development teams over the lifespan of a project. This could
be due to a number of factors, but one thing that is given is that the
same developer which started the project often isn't around 3 months
later. I've noticed a massive amount of vulnerabilities due to the
developers not knowing what was going on, which is also due to badly
written code, but also the lack of any documentation or guidance.
Now your comment about unit tests and integration tests is valid and
one that should be included.
Documentation and correctly written code are both equally important.
On 15 Dec 2008, at 5:24 PM, Erlend Oftedal wrote:
> Hi Paolo
> This is an interesting project, which I hope will be successful.
> I have some comments:
> “C3 – Missing input validation” – I would call this “Missing input
> validation and output encoding”. It’s not always possible to filter
> out dangerous characters from the input. Consider the name O’Brian.
> It contains a quote (‘) which might be considered dangerous (SQL-
> injection) and filtered out. However it’s actually a part of the
> name, and we should thus store it. So the correct way to handle this
> character would be to encode it when sending the data to the SQL-
> server. Best practices here would be to use parameterized queries or
> in the case of missing language support, escape it yourself. However
> this is not a part of input validation. It’s something developers
> should do where they create the SQL-statement.
> The same logic can be used for XSS.
> Please not that I’m not saying input validation is useless. I just
> think both are necessary.
> “C9 - Documentation weakness” – I don’t think that documentation is
> the issue here. In my opinion, writing maintainable code is not
> about documenting your code, but about writing code that others can
> read. If you look to coding gurus like Robert C. Martin (author of
> books such as “Clean Code”), he says "Obviously, there are times
> when you must write a comment but I want those times to be few and
> far between and if I find myself writing a comment because I've got
> no other option, I kick myself. It's a failure of my ability to
> express myself well in code."
> The idea is to use short methods (easy to get an overview), good
> method and variable naming, and good object oriented design (using
> design principles like the Single-Responsibility-Principle) to
> reduce the complexity of the code.
> Documentation and comments has a tendency to lie, because when
> developers are short on time (which they often are because of
> management or customer pressure), they tend to fix the code without
> updating the comments. In this case the documentation will lie,
> which is a lot worse than no documentation at all. However the code
> does not lie. The best documentation you can have, is in the form of
> unit tests and integration tests, because the documentation/
> specification is then executable. So my suggestion for C9 would be:
> “C9 – Readability” or “C9 – Unreadable code”.
> While on the subject of testing, “CX – Untested code” could be
> another item in you list.
> Best regards
> Erlend Oftedal
> OWASP Norway
> Fra: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> ] På vegne av Paolo Perego
> Sendt: 15. desember 2008 15:11
> Til: Owasp leaders
> Emne: [Owasp-leaders] Owasp Source Code Flaws Top 10 Project
> Hello leaders, I'm really happy to announce a new documentation
> project I started today. Our Top 10 most critical web app
> vulnerabilities is the standard de facto when trying to summarize
> findings when you assess a web application. And it is great.
> Looking at source code assessment (or code review, or static
> analysis, or whatever the name you want to use :-)), nothing like
> this exists. Gary McGraw introduced the 7 kingdoms as taxonomy. I
> started looking at this great job extending it to meet Owasp Top 10
> like template.
> I also used categories that I found useful to gather security code
> review findings in.
> That's why I started this Top 10 project. The goal is to provide
> something useful in Owasp Code Review Guide while trying to organize
> security issues and the second goal is to use it as Owasp Orizon
> default library cookbooks in order to have a "fil rouge" from Code
> review guide and the implementing tool. The Source code flaws Top 10
> will be that fil rouge.
> I really hope that everyone interested will subscribe to mailing
> list and give some contributions to this document I'd like to
> release as beta quality project in the next AppSec Europe 2009 in
> Link: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Source_Code_Flaws_Top_10_Project
> Roadmap: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Source_Code_Flaws_Top_10_Project_Roadmap
> Mailinglist subscription page: https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-source-code-flaws-top-10
> "stay hungry, stay foolish"
> OWASP Orizon project, http://orizon.sourceforge.net
> "enjoy your code review experience"
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders