[Owasp-leaders] SecDevOps Risk Workflow Book (please help with your feedback)

Dinis Cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Sun Oct 30 11:43:29 UTC 2016

Andre see I just updated Describe Risks as Features rather than as Wishes
expands on this topic (namely how to write those RISK tickets)


On 29 October 2016 at 00:57, Andre Gironda <andreg+owasp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Really enjoy the parts on JIRA -- I liked the parts about making Risk a
>>> separate project but what if appsec requirements/documentation are listed
>>> in its own Epic instead?
>> That can work, the prob is that it is easy for those Epics to fall into
>> the 'backlog pit of despair
>> <https://github.com/DinisCruz/Book_SecDevOps_Risk_Workflow/blob/bbb2f5ee5c3e8a0e1f9cca43b47019e8fcfc1d25/content/2.Risk-workflow/For-developers/Backlog%20Pit%20of%20Despair.md>'
>> and start to be ignored (i.e. unless you have that 'Risk Accepted' button,
>> it is 'cheap and easy' to just keep prioritising other 'really important'
>> features required by the business/users). Another issue is that I like to
>> use the JIRA Risk project to describe 'reality' (i.e. the
>> Risks/Issues/features that exists or will exist soon) and then let the
>> dev's use their JIRA project (or whatever bug tracking system they use) to
>> describe what needs to be done (i.e. how they would address those RISK
>> issues) For example a RISK issue (in the separate RISK or APPSEC Jira
>> project) would be *"Xyz app - There is no Authentication on exposed Web
>> Service's methods" , *who would (when in the 'Allocated for Fix' stage)
>> be linked into another ticket (or multiple tickets) in the application's
>> JIRA project that would be called *"Use Spring Security to authenticate
>> users of service"*
> This is great and adds context for me. I'll let you know how this
> conversation goes with the powers that be.
>> Btw, do you open JIRA tickets for the issues/risks/threats raised by
>> Threat Models?
> Yes, and I very-much also enjoyed the notion of Chained Threat Models. I
> think I used those exact same words the same day that you did to describe
> the very-same thing. Uncanny.
> Thank you,
> Andre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20161030/8f6a8b7d/attachment.html>

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list