[Owasp-leaders] Initiative Bounty program - Heavier testing and requirements for Defender Libraries

Paul Ritchie paul.ritchie at owasp.org
Wed Nov 25 16:34:43 UTC 2015


Johanna, this is great work.

I had hoped that someone in the community would pick up on all the email
discussion and "take action" to form a proposal and convert many of the
good suggestions and recommendations from leaders into "accepted OWASP
Policy".

So, Thanks for leading by example.

As I understand, the next step is to have the Community, and then the
Project Task Force "agree to the proposal", and once that is done, it would
go to the Board for a decision at their Dec. 9 meeting for the 'stamp of
approval' to implement new OWASP policy.

Again, thanks, Paul

Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
OWASP Executive Director
paul.ritchie at owasp.org


On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:31 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:

> Hi leaders
>
> Recently, I had a wide discussion with the Board regarding setting higher
> criteria for projects in the area of defender Libraries such as implement
> heavier security testing for them. A couple of weeks ago we also discussed
> about this issue, especially because it holds a certain level of
> responsability.
>
> If we are setting projects that are supposed to protect applications, but
> if we don't even do a minimum check up on them, then we definitely don't
> practice what we preach ;-)
>
> Fact is, there is no testing at all required for these libraries and we
> don't know if they withstand  the security as they claim, especially if
> these projects are being advertised as 'LAB' or Flagship.Or even worse if
> they make the application more insecure ;-P
>
> With some of the ideas and discussions related to this,we came with the
> following plan, which I'll be supporting as a Pilot project for one
> flagship or lab Defender library, and see if we can implement this as part
> of the Process review for defender libraries willing to become Flagship (or
> hold their status).
>
> *For incubators(Defender libraries):*
> Minimum requirement:
> Projects in the area of Incubator defender libraries must provide and
> publiciseat least quarterly automated scans (analysis through
> Coverity/SWAMP or any other automated DAST/SAST scan tool) to verify their
> code.
>
> LAB*(Defender libraries)*:
> Minimum requirements
> Same as incubator,including a bounty program sponsored by OWASP(with a
> maximum amount of US500) to test the project through bug bounty when
> requesting to become flagship.
>
> Flagship*(Defender libraries)*
> Same as Incubator and labs, including a bounty program sponsored by OWASP,
> to test the project through bug bounty program.
>
> The Bug bounty program will be run once a year to verify their status.
>
> The idea is that all these projects must  publicise security scans as a
> minimum requirement to verify their security level. We are aware that
> automated scans can miss issues and contain false positives, but at least
> there is a minimum check up and if issues are found, they must publicise
> this on their wiki and avoid any users to use them as they are.
>
> PILOT project proposal for ONE flagship or LAB project (example CRSFGuard)
>
>    - Create draft plan with Project leader
>    - Do a static code analysis in the Coverity/SWAMP/similar tool
>    - Verify results with Project leader
>    - If no major issues are found, deploy library in a dummy site to test
>    the scoped issue(s)
>    - Do a vulnerability scan using ZAP/BURP to see if they are able to
>    catch the scoped vulnerability (in this case CRSF attack)
>    - No bug found then proceed to setup 'scoped' bounty program for
>    finding specific CRSF vulnerabilities (bypass crypto/CRSF missing server
>    side validation)
>    - Run the bounty with a max period of 3 months or less (if scoped
>    issues are found before)
>    - If issue found, we proceed to log the issue into Github's project
>    - Leader must create warning on his wiki and github page regarding the
>    bug
>    - Allow leader to work to fix the issue for a max period of 3 months
>    - If issue is not fixed by then, project should be set as inactive or
>    'in progress'==> whether way users must be aware of the security issues
>    - In case the library is 'unbreakable' after 3 months , no money has
>    been spent in this period and we have effectively QA the library until a
>    further new version
>
> A draft version right now can be found here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br4I8jKc0tyzdBCq4ohO1LcDNL861xldMBlkA_z6v34/edit
>
> Jim will be providing also his input on the definition of the scope.
>
> Your feedback and ideas are all welcome as we are in the process to define
> the pilot project scope
>
> Regards
>
> Johanna
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151125/8392d4ff/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list