[OWASP-TESTING] Notes on Testing

Kartik Trivedi javapro13 at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 4 13:21:15 EST 2002

Hi Mark,

The guide is shaping out great....
Sorry for the lack of participation...was a bit busy....But I will make up
for it ;)

Attached is a small section on xss. Let me know what you think.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Curphey" <mark at curphey.com>
To: <owasp-testing at lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:21 PM
Subject: [OWASP-TESTING] Notes on Testing

> Crew,
> Its late I am tired and so I haven't made this polite or politically
> correct. Pls forgive me before reading. Nothing is personal.
> I will re-write into and what are web applications sections. I have to
> do this for the Guide anyways.
> Page 15 - Pretty diagram but not sure what it is trying to show ?
> Page 16 / 66 - I think planning of each phase of a test occurs, its not
> a discrete task. You plan the architecture assessment as well as an
> implementation review.
> I strongly (STRONGLY) think that there are discrete Requirements,
> Architecture (design), Implementation and Management Reviews. There may
> even be more phases we wish to call out.
> Section 5 should be removed for the same reasons as section 1
> Planning a test - maybe this section should be replaced with an overview
> about testing, planning, organizing etc
> white box, black box, static whitebox....urgh i hate those terms. If we
> are going to use them then we need to really clearly define them in a
> glossary so we are all on the same page as to exactly what they mean. I
> hate them ;-)
> Based on above comments the requirements review and architecture
> analysis doesn't exist
> Page 17 / 66 - agree with Nicks comments earlier. I think this is like
> 25% at most of a good assessment methodology. Its the after the fact
> tactical testing.
> 23 / 66 - obtaining source code - this should be the norm not the ab
> norm. It says in large tests. I don't think thats true. It also says in
> addition to pen tests. It should read as part of the testing life cycle
> including requirements, management etc
> 24 / 66 - this is a UML sequence diagram and we should use well
> understood language and syntax I think
> 25 / 66 - Infr review - I was thinking this would include more stuff
> like if the app uses getHostByName() and not GetHostbyIP() or doesn't
> synchronize tie clocks making timing attacks possible
> 26 / 66 - everyone should have dev, qa, pre-prod and prod. I would
> strongly argue that most testing is well before prod. Real data should
> never (NEVER) be used in testing. This section IMHO needs a big rewrite.
> This is all good and well for momandpops.php but....
> 27 - 66 - decompilers ? This is testing not hacking ;-) I think this
> section should explain how browser proxies work, how automated scanners
> are combos of automated http_user agents and fuzzers etc. It needs to
> outline source code analyzers. There are technical tools and checklist
> tools for the management reviews as well.
> DCMA - should be moved into an overview section if not removed. DCMA is
> about reverse engineering stuff, not examining stuff with permission
> unless I am missing the point
> 33 / 66 - webdav is an http extension and not an httpd extension.
> Options will return that baby ;-)
> SSL - again this is stuff an arch review and implementation / code
> review combined are best suited for. I am not sure I get the comments
> about making sure an entire page is SSL. You should make sure your
> applications transport matches your requirements but in many cases only
> sending data back may require a tunnel. This section should explain the
> SSL helo, how the cipher suites are determined and how you find
> algorithms supported and key lengths etc. Saying you should block old
> SSL (which I assume you mean 2) is interesting. Why ? Let the SSL
> negotiate the best it can do and allow your customers to make the choice
> with informed info.Summary, this section should show how to determine
> SSL version, cipher specs, and cert validity.And its all in the ssl
> headers and I can knock up a quick Java app if you want as a demo. JSSE
> is a king.
> SSL requirements by source code on each page ?
> And on that section its back to the code review / arch review / pen test
> thing. Looking at this from the outside is much harder than inspecting
> the code and arch. Have a good MVC model and you know one thing. Look at
> JSSE and you know another
> 33 /66 . old backup unreferenced files. This doesn't explain how to
> test. Too much guide type explanation. I think we should provide a list
> of extensions mapped to apps asa to asp for instance from FP, and then
> explain how from a crawled site and common file names you fuzz requests
> and look for an http 200 to come back.
> Less mature code - bit of a leap of faith isn't it ?
> This is only true if you build on same box as you deploy anyway which is
> a big no no IMHO. We cant just say the tools used to spider should check
> for this. Its a cop out ;-)
> 38 - logging 0- again as a general comment we should be driving people
> to testing against logging requirements or best practice. The logging
> section is a valid point but what about testing to make sure failed
> logins actual log, about malicious input creates an event etc
> OK only half way thru and probably offended 90% of people by now, but
> candid comments is the only way to go. If anyone finds this helpful I
> will do the rest, if not tell me or ignore.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Visual Studio.NET
> comprehensive development tool, built to increase your
> productivity. Try a free online hosted session at:
> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr0003en
> _______________________________________________
> owasp-testing mailing list
> owasp-testing at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owasp-testing
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: xss.txt
Url: http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-testing/attachments/20021204/21aa4915/attachment.txt 

More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list