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

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Wed May 25 02:44:07 UTC 2016


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

*yea peeps *

*take the time to help clean the wiki is full of outdated useless
information...and projects that...you better take a look your**self*
*Warning: we can't delete them but you can label them😂*

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Python_Static_Analysis_Project

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Honeycomb_Project/es

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Insecure_Web_App_Project/es

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_JBroFuzz/es

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Jobs_Project

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_LAPSE_Project/es

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Learn_About_Encoding_Project


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>


-- 
Johanna Curiel
OWASP Volunteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160524/0c4941b1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list