[Owasp-leaders] [Owasp-community] OT10 Risks?

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sat Sep 27 18:32:31 UTC 2014


 > On David's final remark, I would like to propose we align the 
definitions used across all top 10 projects (if not OWASP) to one 
vocabulary or dictionary of terms.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. This is also my answer to Tinur's 
question, "what are we going to do about that?". I say we as OWASP 
publish our take on nomenclature and terminology and request that 
projects standardize on those terms. I believe Colin Watson has done 
some work in this area already.

 > My choice would be NIST; others that would work include OCTAVE, ISO, 
the work over at MITRE, as well as ENISA and some of the ISF and ISACA 
definitions. Not to forget ITIL and the fact that we can always align to 
our own custom OWASP set of definitions.

I'm flexible here myself, I just think we should standardize on *something*.

 > For now, I am merely putting my hand up and stating that you have a 
volunteer to carry the action of aligning to a single terminology, 
should this be deemed the course of actions we want to take.

Yiannis, it is necessary and prudent that OWASP publishes a 
"nomenclature guideline" to address this issue as step 1. This does not 
have to be a "project" it can simply be a wiki page that we attach to 
project creation guidelines as a start... Thank you!

- Jim



> Wanting to almost put "vote - action required" on the title and having 
> spoken to some of you about this, I would appreciate you spamming this 
> thread should you think strongly it's a good idea or otherwise.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Yiannis
>
> On 27 Sep 2014 18:47, "Dave Wichers" <dave.wichers at owasp.org 
> <mailto:dave.wichers at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>     Top 10 risks, not Top 10 most common vulns.
>
>     And the risk calculation model is well documented in the Top 10
>     itself. A body of data is used to calculate one of the four risk
>     factors (prevalence / commonality). The other 3 factors are
>     calculated based on professional experience of the Top 10 project
>     team members because we couldn't find any publically available
>     data sets to help with those factors. We considered/tried to get
>     data around which vulns where actually the most exploited for the
>     2013 release, but we couldn't come up any such data sets. This
>     will definitely be a topic of discussion and potentially an area
>     of word for the 2016 update.
>
>     -Dave
>
>     *From:*systmkor [mailto:systmkor at gmail.com
>     <mailto:systmkor at gmail.com>]
>     *Sent:* Friday, September 26, 2014 10:24 PM
>     *To:* Eoin Keary
>     *Cc:* Dave Wichers; <owasp-community at lists.owasp.org
>     <mailto:owasp-community at lists.owasp.org>>;
>     <owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org <mailto:owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Owasp-community] [Owasp-leaders] OT10 Risks?
>
>     I may have missed it but I haven't seen how the Top 10 is
>     calculated. What risk framework and body of data would be used to
>     generate the top 10 risks? Lastly is the goal to have the Top 10
>     most common risks or the top 10 riskiest problems?
>
>     Great discussion thus far.
>
>     Orion
>
>     On Sep 26, 2014, at 17:58, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org
>     <mailto:eoin.keary at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Good call Dave. Makes perfect sense now you say it, would it be an
>     idea to include this explanation in the top 10 foreword ?
>
>     Eoin Keary
>
>     Owasp Global Board
>
>     +353 87 977 2988 <tel:%2B353%2087%20977%202988>
>
>
>     On 24 Sep 2014, at 02:26, "Dave Wichers" <dave.wichers at owasp.org
>     <mailto:dave.wichers at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>         We thought about this pretty hard when switching from Vulns to
>         Risks in the title of the Top 10. Here were our thoughts:
>
>         ·Switching to Risks we thought was important because
>         organizations care about risks, not vulns. Just because a vuln
>         is prevalent (like info leaks/error
>         handling/system.out.printlns()/etc.) doesn't mean it
>         introduces a Top 10 level risk. So, organizing the Top 10 into
>         the 10 largest risks helps to focus it on what's most important.
>
>         ·OK -- given the new risk focus, we had a history of using
>         vulnerability names in the earlier releases which were about
>         Vulns. So we had a choice to make. Change all the names so
>         they sound like Risks, or retain the names that people are
>         used to, to avoid introducing unfamiliar terms that are confusing.
>
>         oAnd we decided to go with the use familiar terms approach,
>         even though we knew that some of those terms aren't
>         technically risks, they are vulns, or weaknesses, or whatever.
>
>         So, we readily admit that the Top 10 category names aren't all
>         exactly risks, particularly the very technical ones like
>         Injection, XSS and CSRF, but those 3 terms in particular are
>         very well known and replacing their names with a risk based
>         description of those issues we felt would do more harm than good.
>
>         For example, what if we called XSS something like what CWE-79
>         does: "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page
>         Generation".   That would confuse the hell out of most people,
>         so we stuck with the familiar terms instead.
>
>         So, a fair and reasonable topic to discuss. But this is our
>         rationale as to why we did it this way and I still think it's
>         the right thing for the Top 10.
>
>         -Dave
>
>         Dave Wichers
>
>         OWASP Top 10 Project Lead
>
>         *From:*owasp-community-bounces at lists.owasp.org
>         <mailto:owasp-community-bounces at lists.owasp.org>[mailto:owasp-community-bounces at lists.owasp.org]*On
>         Behalf Of*Neil Smithline
>         *Sent:*Monday, September 22, 2014 1:35 PM
>         *To:*Josh Sokol
>         *Cc:*owasp-community at lists.owasp.org
>         <mailto:owasp-community at lists.owasp.org>;owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
>         <mailto:owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>         *Subject:*Re: [Owasp-community] [Owasp-leaders] OT10 Risks?
>
>         Some history...
>
>         The 2004 and 2007 T10s are titled "The Ten Most Critical Web
>         Application Security**Vulnerabilities**". The 2010 and 2013
>         are "The Ten Most Critical Web Application Security**Risks**"
>         This name change was a major topic of discussion while
>         developing the 2010 T10.
>
>         My recollection, which admittedly is a bit fuzzy, is that the
>         thought was that risks are what you train your staff to avoid.
>         Improper defense against the risks leads to specific
>         vulnerabilities and ultimately successful attacks. At the time
>         of writing the 2010 T10, there was great debate about the
>         meaning of vulnerabilities and risks. The problem wasn't that
>         people didn't understand these terms. Quite the contrary, the
>         problem was that nearly everyone had their own definitions of
>         these terms.
>
>         My suspicion is that the items in the 2013 T10 (I'm only
>         interested in the newest T10) span terms such as risks,
>         vulnerabilities, threats, attacks, etc... The definitions were
>         unclear during the writing of the T10 and, based on this email
>         thread, are still up for grabs. So we may never be able to
>         categorize what is in the 2013 T10. During writing of the T10,
>         we focused on our goal of making the T10 of utility to
>         engineering organizations and didn't worry about having
>         consensus about definitions.
>
>         Going forward....
>
>         I question whether we'll ever come up with consistent terms
>         that we agree on. If we did come up with consistent terms,
>         what would we do with them? Use them as a framework for future
>         OWASP work? Other?
>
>
>
>         Neil Smithline
>         408-634-5764 <tel:408-634-5764>
>         http://www.neilsmithline.com <http://www.neilsmithline.com/>
>
>         On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Josh Sokol
>         <josh.sokol at owasp.org <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>         I'm not sure I interpret it the same way.  Depends really on
>         your definition of a "system" (arguing topicality here Jim). 
>         How about "an assemblage or combination of things or parts
>         forming a complex or unitary whole".  By that definition a
>         system could be a web application, a database like MySQL or
>         Oracle, or an actual computer. So, if a web application can be
>         a system, then, by definition, SQL Injection can be a
>         vulnerability in that system.  No?  And yes, it can also be an
>         attack type.
>
>         ~josh
>
>         On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jim Manico
>         <jim.manico at owasp.org <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>         This is not true from Mitre's perspective. Per Mitre..:
>
>         SQL injection is an attack type. Only a system can be
>         vulnerable. So a vulnerability per Mitre (per my reading) is
>         an actual weakness in a actual system, hence...
>
>         CVE = actual issues in real systems and  (key letter V)
>
>         CAPEC = abstract attack type definitions
>
>         --
>
>         Jim Manico
>
>         @Manicode
>
>         (808) 652-3805 <tel:%28808%29%20652-3805>
>
>
>         On Sep 22, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org
>         <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>             If you want to get technical, XSS is a vulnerability. 
>             Getting XSS'ed is exploitation of that vulnerability.  An
>             example of a risk would be the compromise of customer data
>             resulting from the exploitation of a XSS vulnerability.
>
>             If anyone is interested in learning more about Risk (and
>             SimpleRisk), I'm teaching a 1-day class on it at LASCON
>             this year.
>
>             ~josh
>
>             On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Eoin Keary
>             <eoin.keary at owasp.org <mailto:eoin.keary at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>
>             Xss is not a risk :)  Getting XSS'ed is if you are vulnerable.
>
>             It's a top 10 of most common vulns.
>             But if you actually did a top 10 (of common vulns)  the
>             top 5 would be SSL and security header related and make
>             for slow reading. :)
>
>
>             Eoin Keary
>             Owasp Global Board
>             +353 87 977 2988 <tel:%2B353%2087%20977%202988>
>
>
>             On 21 Sep 2014, at 17:04, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org
>             <mailto:eoin.keary at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>             > Risk != vuln
>             >
>             > Risk is defined as:
>             > "(Exposure to) the possibility of loss, injury, or other
>             adverse or unwelcome circumstance; a chance or situation
>             involving such a possibility."
>             >
>             > The result of a weakness being leveraged and unwelcome
>             outcomes.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             > Eoin Keary
>             > Owasp Global Board
>             >+353 87 977 2988 <tel:%2B353%2087%20977%202988>
>             >
>             >
>             > On 21 Sep 2014, at 16:53, Jim Manico
>             <jim.manico at owasp.org <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>             >
>             >>> T10 lists does not accurately
>             >> reflect the most dangerous "risks" or that it would be
>             better to name it
>             >> differently?
>             >>
>             >> The commentary that I received was that the term "risk"
>             did not
>             >> actually reflect the items on the lists. Folks have
>             told me it should
>             >> be "vulnerabilities" or "attacks" or "weaknesses" and more.
>             >>
>             >> I'm not sure what the right answer is here...
>             >>
>             >> Aloha,
>             >> --
>             >> Jim Manico
>             >> @Manicode
>             >>(808) 652-3805 <tel:%28808%29%20652-3805>
>             >>
>             >>> On Sep 21, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Tobias
>             <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
>             <mailto:tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>> wrote:
>             >>>
>             >>> T10 lists does not accurately
>             >>> reflect the most dangerous "risks" or that it would be
>             better to name it
>             >>> differently?
>             >> _______________________________________________
>             >> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>             >>OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>             <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>             >>https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>             > _______________________________________________
>             > Owasp-community mailing list
>             >Owasp-community at lists.owasp.org
>             <mailto:Owasp-community at lists.owasp.org>
>             >https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-community
>             _______________________________________________
>             OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>             OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>             <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>             https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>             OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>             <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>             https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>         OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>         <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>         https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Owasp-community mailing list
>         Owasp-community at lists.owasp.org
>         <mailto:Owasp-community at lists.owasp.org>
>         https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-community
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Owasp-community mailing list
>     Owasp-community at lists.owasp.org
>     <mailto:Owasp-community at lists.owasp.org>
>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-community
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>     OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20140927/9e6aa6b8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list