[Owasp-leaders] Instead of OWASP libraries, why don't we ...
josh.sokol at owasp.org
Sat Nov 21 20:06:09 UTC 2015
Something that I've also mentioned to Jim in the past is that this concept
of individuals working on individual projects will only take us so far. As
an organization, we need to come up with standard function names, inputs,
outputs, error reporting, etc across different languages and frameworks.
That way, as an organization, in our documentation we can reference
something like "For HTML output encoding, use the encodeHTML" function and
it doesn't matter which language they are working with, the process is the
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> My thinking is facilitating *automatic* security additions where we can.
> Think Go templates, AngularJS or ReactJS (just use them and they
> autoescape), working with frameworks to turn on CSRF protection *by
> default*, or default security response headers that we see in RoR *by
> default*. There is no way we can win every security battle in this
> fashion, but there are many security additions that frameworks can embed
> and enable for all. I think there is a lot of work we can do in this area.
> And one more note - this is a great conversation. This is the kind of
> stuff I hope we as a community talk about (and do) more. It's central to
> our mission.
> On 11/21/15 1:27 PM, Kevin W. Wall wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Tim Morgan <tim.morgan at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> Does this resonate with anyone?
>>> Spot on. It's hard work and takes a lot of selfless dedication.
>> Agree with that. Writing good general security class libraries / APIs
>> that developers
>> find easy to use in widely different contexts that you can't completely
>> foresee is extremely difficult. It requires both significant development
>> security experience relatively few have.
>> I feel OWASP should consider spending some of it's funds to hire
>>> to be dedicated to some of these tasks. Or offer bounties for specific
>>> platform security tasks. I think that would accelerate this kind of
>>> activity, significantly....
>>> Auto-escaping templates, CSP integration, solid ABAC implementations,
>>> default secure headers, solid integrated password storage, etc etc all by
>>> default all integrated into common development platforms.
>>> I think this would be an awesome way to serve the mission. Anyone agree?
>> This idea sounds good in practice, but there already are many good
>> libraries (e.g, Spring Security, Apache Shiro, Struts validation, etc.)
>> that are available to the development community but that most of the
>> development community just fails to use. A great example of this failure
>> that I've run across time and time again are applications that are already
>> using Spring 3.2 that could enable Spring Security's CSRF protection in
>> additional line of their Spring config file (typically
>> <csrf />
>> between the <http>...</http> tags. (In Spring 4.x, CSRF protection is
>> by default.) Sure, like most things, it's not perfect, but is
>> generally good enough
>> to effectively mitigate these attacks. Yet, I seldom see this used. Even
>> strangely, when I do see CSRF protection mechanisms used via Spring 3.2,
>> they more often than not are home-grown solutions.
>> I could say the same thing for Struts validation. I very seldom see it
>> So rather than trying to construct what we, as the security community,
>> think are better libraries or better approaches, I think we need to take
>> a step
>> back and research why the currently security libraries are not used more
>> I do agree with Tim that a large part of the reason is that we don't see
>> developers writing secure code is largely due to a copy-&-paste mentality
>> to code. Developers google for something like "how do I do <x>?" and
>> the first few links pop up something from Stack Exchange or W3Schools
>> and the copy the first working example that they see and don't bother
>> searching for a secure solution. Certainly a large part of this can be
>> blamed on an unawareness on developer's parts that what they are
>> copying are insecure. So I don't really know how to combat that. Maybe
>> rather than OWASP funding developers to work on security libraries, we
>> should hire security conscious developers to patrol development forums,
>> newsgroups, etc. and correct posts where examples are given that have
>> security vulnerabilities.
> Jim Manico
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders