[Owasp-leaders] HTML Security Annotations

Bjoern Kimminich bjoern.kimminich at owasp.org
Wed Jan 4 22:26:32 UTC 2017

Hi Simon, 

I like this idea. To make the life of the tools-people easier, a fixed unique prefix would be good, so they can basically ignore all,


And if "*" would share a set of terms for vulns with the __vulns.json idea for scanner result assessment on intentionally vulnerable apps (1st draft see VWAD repo), that would be even more consistent!


Am 4. Januar 2017 14:53:06 MEZ schrieb psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com>:
>All security tools suffer from false positives (FP’s), and good tools
>these FPs to be flagged in the tool. SAST tools also typically allow
>source code to be annotated to prevent FPs from being flagged, eg the
>@SuppressWarnings annotation in Java.
>I've discussed this with Mozilla web developers and we have decided to
>start using what I've dubbed 'HTML security annotations'.
>The first one we will be using is to allow forms to be flagged as not
>requiring (anti) CSRF tokens, eg
><form action="/my-handling-form-page" method="post" data-no-csrf>
>    <div>
>        <label for="search">Search:</label>
>        <input type="text" id=”search" />
>    </div>
>The 'data-no-csrf' attribute is an indication that the developers know
>about CSRF tokens and have decided that this form doesnt require one.
>Security tools _can_ choose to not flag such forms as being insecure
>because they dont have a CSRF token. They can also make it easier for
>users to find all forms that so have such tokens:)
>Theres no guarantee that the developers are right, so a sensible
>would not place too much faith in this attributes use.
>However its an easy and effective way to reduce FPs in DAST tools and
>an easy way to indicate to bug bounty participants that they should
>report these forms if they are _really_ sure they can be usefully
>There are other alternative solutions to this particular problem,
>   1. Adding CSRF tokens to all forms whether they need it or not. That
>   feels nasty to me and I'm not going to suggest it to our devs ;)
>   2. Having tool specific configurations for flagging FPs. Many tools
> support this but personally I like the annotation approach that can be
>   adopted by all tools
>So thats the first one we're trying out, and I can see the potential
>more of them.
>What do you think?
>If everyone else hates this idea then we can keep as Mozilla specific.
>However if there is broad support for this them maybe it could be
>on the relevant pages of the OWASP wiki.
>In any case I'll be adding the option to ignore forms flagged in this
>to ZAP ;)
>All constructive feedback appreciated, including suggestions for other
>annotations that could be useful.
>OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20170104/04a8005a/attachment.html>

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list