[Owasp-leaders] OWASP Top 10 - Proposal for a Temporary Injunction

Rui Pereira (WCG) ruiper at wavefrontcg.com
Tue Feb 26 18:52:42 UTC 2013



I am a long(ish) time lurker coming out of the shadows here, but I agree
with Ryan. The OWASP Top 10 should factor in both the vulnerabilities
identified in applications through testing (this is being done it seems,
from the 8 data sources listed), but also real world statistics on which
vulnerabilities are actually being exploited in the wild (as it were). In
addition to the example sources listed, there are the annual Symantec
Internet Threat Reports, Datalossdb, and the IBM XForce threat reports. I’m
sure others can sources can be identified. One could possibly use the number
of records accessed (if known), to give additional weight to a specific
attack type (rather than simply treating all incidents equally).     


Just my 2c Cdn

Thank You 

Rui Pereira

WaveFront Consulting


From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
[mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Barnett
Sent: February 26, 2013 10:29 AM
To: Michael Coates; owasp-topten-project
Cc: OWASP Leaders
Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] OWASP Top 10 - Proposal for a Temporary


The page here (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2013-Introduction)
lists the following -


"The OWASP Top 10 is based on risk data from 8 firms that specialize in
application security, including 4 consulting companies and 4 tool vendors (2
static and 2 dynamic). This data spans over 500,000 vulnerabilities across
hundreds of organizations and thousands of applications. The Top 10 items
are selected and prioritized according to this prevalence data, in
combination with consensus estimates of exploitability, detectability, and
impact estimates."


And the Acknowlegments section on that same page lists the 8 data sources:


§  Aspect Security

§  HP (Results for both Fortify and WebInspect)

§  Minded Security

§  Softtek

§  TrustWave

§  Veracode – Statistics

§  WhiteHat Security Inc. – Statistics


My concerns are not with the data sources provided, but that they are mainly
factoring in only vulnerability prevalence.  We need to factor in more data
sources related to attack frequency/liklihood.  Some example resources:

*	WASC Web Hacking Incident Database
*	Akamai State of the Internet Reports
*	Firehosts Web Application Attack Reports
*	Imperva's Web Application Attack Reports

This is just a few examples of real attack data that we should consider with
regards to both which items are included and for priority listings.





From: Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:05 PM
To: owasp-topten-project <owasp-topten-project at owasp.org>
Cc: OWASP Leaders <owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org>
Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] OWASP Top 10 - Proposal for a Temporary


Given the importance of the OWASP top 10, its use throughout the world, and
the fact it is one of our initial points (for many organizations) of
spreading the OWASP mission I think these are valid questions.

Can someone from the top 10 project provide insight on these questions? Do
we have this type of information already published? If not, we should
capture and publish. Other organizations will likely want to better
understand both our methodology and comprehensive understanding of the
landscape that led to our recommendations.


Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Jerry Hoff <jerry at owasp.org> wrote:

Hello leaders!


As we all know, the OWASP Top 10 - 2013 release candidate list was made
available on Feb 15, 2013.  Since then, there has been a lot of controversy
on a number of points.  The most pressing - in my opinion - is the
methodology used to come up with the top 10.


The OWASP top 10 is BY FAR the most visible and recognizable project in
OWASP.  It is used as a de facto standard by which countless organizations
around the globe measure their application security.  The issues that are
covered by the Top 10 will receive the vast majority of attention from
security teams around the world - if there are redundant or needless
entries, huge amounts of money will be wasted, and if important risks are
not listed on the top 10, they will be largely ignored.


That said - I would like to raise the following issues:


- What is the methodology used to decide on the "Top 10 risks"?

- Who exactly is involved in the selection and ordering of these risks?

- What assurance do organizations have that this list is a true reflection
of webapp-related risk

- Since this is OWASP's most visible flagship project, what assurance do WE
in the OWASP community have that this list is an accurate accounting of the
top 10 risks intrinsic in web apps? 



Folks - OWASP has grown extremely rapidly in a short amount of time, and as
the entire industry matures doing things "like we've always done them" is
not sufficient in my opinion.


This most popular project - that essentially speaks and represents all of
OWASP - should not be selected arbitrarily and released publicly without
answers to the questions above.  


Therefore, I respectfully ask Jeff and Dave not to release the OWASP Top 10
- 2013 edition until a reasonable accompanying methodology and metrics are
released outlining how these risks were decided upon.


Is this fair?  I absolutely respect the work Jeff and Dave have put into
this project over the years - the top 10 is a large part of what made OWASP
the organization it is today.  I also respect their rights as the project
owners to do as they see fit.  However, since this project is so critical
not only to OWASP, but to the world, I respectfully ask that:


- a methodology be published 

- to have an open conversation (perhaps convening a Top 10 Summit) to ensure
the top 10 risks are in line with a reasonable methodology


Thank you,









Jerry Hoff

jerry at owasp.org

OWASP-Leaders mailing list
OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org


_______________________________________________ OWASP-Leaders mailing list
OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130226/09585673/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list