[Owasp-leaders] Bring balance: force verification in scanning tools

Andrew van der Stock vanderaj at owasp.org
Wed May 25 02:31:12 UTC 2016


All good security tools are dual purpose. Browsers, telnet, the Testing
Guide, the ASVS, Zap, all of our training materials can be used for
negative purposes as much as the voices in someone's head. The majority of
the tools used in hacks are built into Kali, and in many cases, exploit
kits are self sustaining without using anything like the many commercial
and open source web application scanners.

We are about enabling folks to add security to their programs. We are an
open, transparent community for application security. We are not a
forensics or law enforcement community.

I use Zap regularly in environments with no Internet access. There is no
method of making Zap or any of our other tools or documents phone home in a
forensically safe manner.

Of all the things we should be doing, this is the last. It represents a
massive opportunity cost for a use case that we just aren't responsible
for. We have a code of ethics as a compensating control, and of all the
things we have actually seen, we have only ever had one member participate
in the hactivist attacks back in the day. This is simply a non-issue.

Let's get back to improving our projects and being appsec leaders.

thanks,
Andrew

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman <
buanzo at buanzo.com.ar> wrote:

> Agree with Eoin.
>
> I assume all governments have stopped developing airplanes, because they
> can be hijacked and used for terrorism?
>
> I cannot believe some of the things I have read in this thread.
>
> Seems we are walking backwards.
> On 24 May 2016 10:30 am, "Eoin Keary" <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> The Internet is evil also. It needs to be banned/restricted!
>> No Internet == no cyber hackers!!
>> 😀
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Mario Robles <mario.robles at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm
>>> "Hacking Tools" find the bad stuff, the pentester should include how to
>>> fix it in the report then later will meet with the development team to
>>> guide them on how to fix the issues
>>>
>>> I prefer Zap team focusing on how to find more stuff rather than
>>> spending time on generic remediation steps that most likely will be
>>> different for every issue on every development project, that's a complaint
>>> developers have about generic reports right ?
>>>
>>> If the dev team is committed with security then they use tools made for
>>> prevention directly in their IDE, zap is made for detection if their
>>> prevention was not enough
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Mario
>>> # Please excuse any typos as this was sent from a mobile device
>>>
>>> El 23 may 2016, a las 1:33 p.m., johanna curiel curiel <
>>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> escribió:
>>>
>>> >>There is nothing stopping defenders from using "attacking" tools to
>>> secure their networks, servers, etc. After all we all port scan and
>>> vulnerability scan our infrastructure, right?
>>>
>>> Hi Liam
>>>
>>> I can see majority of the people answering are pen testers. I'm a
>>> developer that learn pen testing to so called 'secure' apps
>>>
>>>  It all depends on the technology and system.You find the holes but this
>>> per se does not fix them or even worse, makes you realise that if the
>>> developer knew how to code securely from the beginning a lot of headaches
>>> could have been avoided.
>>>
>>> Recently I tested a .NET app build using 3.5 SP1 and no master pages or
>>> MVC(available in +4). The so called 'ViewState' did not help against CRSF .
>>> In fact the developer has to rebuild the whole thing using MVC +.NET 4.0.if
>>> he wants to protect this properly.
>>>
>>> IS it feasible at this point? Nope. Will the company release the code
>>> even with the issue? Yep.
>>>
>>> pen testing only helps find the wholes. Fixing them is another
>>> story.Hacking tools don't help you 'secure' applications. They only help
>>> you verify the security built by them.
>>>
>>> Another anecdote. I used to work as RPG developer for a legacy AS/400
>>> banking system. The whole things works with cgi (yikes!)
>>> The pen tester found a CRSF attack. The architect said: prove it. Then
>>> the bug headache came: How to fix this?
>>> Yes, it was a headache to fix and it did not happened immediately.In
>>> fact that architect 'hates' pen testers...😜
>>>
>>> I think we should stop this discussion.
>>>
>>> I think I'm starting a survey just to check how many of you work
>>> defending applications, I mean like *patching, fixing vulnerabilities
>>> in code*, so I might verify if I'm the only developer in OWASP trying
>>> to defend applications and that I'm alone among pen testers...
>>>
>>> Then I'm definitely in the wrong community 😁
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Johanna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Liam Smit <liam.smit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Simon
>>>>
>>>> ZAP needs to be as effective as possible at finding vulnerabilities.
>>>> Hobbling it by making it easier to detect makes it less effective. E.g.
>>>> some vendor's firewall detects the scan and blocks it. When the actual
>>>> exploit comes along it is not detected and the application is compromised.
>>>>
>>>> The better it is at detecting vulnerabilities the better it can be used
>>>> by defenders to plug the holes. There is nothing stopping defenders from
>>>> using "attacking" tools to secure their networks, servers, etc. After all
>>>> we all port scan and vulnerability scan our infrastructure, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Liam
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Johanna Curiel
>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> OWASP Volunteer
>> @eoinkeary
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> 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/20160525/40c95b83/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list