[Owasp-leaders] OWASP Mobile Top 10 - potential conflict of interest in M10
erwin.geirnaert at zionsecurity.com
Tue Nov 4 07:58:00 UTC 2014
If mobile code is not obfuscated it can be a starting point to detect hard-coded secrets.
Code that is not obfuscated can also be easily abused to create rogue malicious apps, especially for Android.
So I think it should be there.
From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Andrew van der Stock
Sent: 04 November 2014 08:07
To: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
Subject: [Owasp-leaders] OWASP Mobile Top 10 - potential conflict of interest in M10
I've had some feedback on Twitter about the OWASP Mobile Top 10.
Number 10 includes a control that I don't believe is a sound security control (security through obfuscation). Coupled with the nature of the employers of those who contributed, all of whom have some form of obfuscation product, I'm really not comfortable that M10 is a sound control or the risk of binary analysis is so high that requires it (no other OWASP standard contains it!), and more to the point M10 has a strong appearance of conflict of interest.
I know many of those involved in the project, and don't doubt for a second their honest desire to create actionable advice, but I am very concerned that the Mobile Top 10 has an obfuscation control written in by folks who sell obfuscation controls.
Can we please see the research that demonstrates that binary analysis is one of the top threats to well written mobile code? I use it as a way to improve my client's apps, and obfuscation just makes my job harder, not the code safer.
OWASP-Leaders mailing list
OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
More information about the OWASP-Leaders