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

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Wed May 25 03:39:46 UTC 2016


Andrew
>>no one is insulting you

Really?

I just made a question. I'm not imposing anything. Some comments here
categorised my idea literally as :
silly, pointless, walking backwards...
On twitter even worse...

I think the end of the conversion came when  Simon said he did not find
this a good idea.  He owns the hacking tool, he decides if he wants to do
it or not.

If the majority thinks this is a bad idea, thats ok, but why call it silly,
pointless etc?

Some folks here like Kevin went in quite detail discussing at a technical
level that I actually enjoyed, like others did

So is not directed to you. People talk about crushing ideas this is an
excellent example. Is enough to give your point saying
+1 or -1 or I don't agree. Why is it necessary to call it silly or point
less or that the catalan police gives an F .... about the fact that I did
not like seeing a Hacking tool like ZAP being used this way.

>>>Please, I implore you - before responding angrily to any imagined
slight, no one is out to get you, no one is insulting you. Please be
respectful of OWASP volunteers and leaders.

Why I'm the only one that you call the attention, Tony UV did't get
reprehended on the list when he says the catalan police gives an F or
PM(spanish) about my F...

I kind of feel discriminated right now.

Don't worry Andrew.

I wont be on this list anymore...bothering peeps with my stupid, silly,
moronic questions about the idea of putting some controls in Hacking tools
used by criminals too.Nevermind.

Good luck with the projects and the wiki that no one helps to clean except
a very few, silly like me...

Cheers and good bye





On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
wrote:

> Johanna,
>
> I did not insult you - almost or actually - in any way. Please re-read my
> post in its entirety.
>
> I am all for discussing things, but please don't be annoyed because folks
> have a differing view.
>
> We are all volunteers here, and we don't need this level of angst. You
> bring up the state of projects again, and there is movement on two fronts
> from the Board. Tom is running very fast with a new hire, as well as the
> Sooryen revamp of our website with their needs assessment that I encourage
> ALL to participate to have their voices heard on this vital topic to
> OWASP's future. Engaging fully with these two initiatives should lead to
> the sorts of outcomes you are looking for, but we can't do those
> improvements overnight, and we can't do it if volunteers leave because they
> are forced to do things that they have zero interest in doing.
>
> We are here to encourage all projects, chapters and outreach, and this
> sort of discourse is discourteous to all those who have donated their time.
> The loudest voices do not get their way at OWASP, it's those who
> participate in a friendly, encouraging manner who get in there and create
> our great projects who do.
>
> Please, I implore you - before responding angrily to any imagined slight,
> no one is out to get you, no one is insulting you. Please be respectful of
> OWASP volunteers and leaders.
>
> thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> You seek and you will find...incomplete empty pages....
>>
>>
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Access_control_enforced_by_presentation_layer
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_.NET_Vulnerability_Research
>>
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/J2EE_Misconfiguration:_Unsafe_Bean_Declaration
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Allowing_password_aging
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Assigning_instead_of_comparing
>>
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Authentication_Bypass_via_Assumed-Immutable_Data
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Business_logic_vulnerability
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Comparing_classes_by_name
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Uncaught_exception
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Empty_String_Password
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Failure_of_true_random_number_generator
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Failure_to_add_integrity_check_value
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Addition_of_data-structure_sentinel
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Buffer_Overflow
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Buffer_underwrite
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Capture-replay
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Catch_NullPointerException
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Comparing_instead_of_assigning
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:44 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> *>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johanna Curiel
>> OWASP Volunteer
>>
>
>


-- 
Johanna Curiel
OWASP Volunteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160524/efb7f435/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list