[Owasp-testing] [Owasp-codereview] Fwd: Code review Structure

Andrew van der Stock vanderaj at owasp.org
Wed Jan 17 10:48:45 EST 2007


This is actually an important question which needs answering.

Personally, I code review in terms of business function as this is the
easiest way to demonstrate your value to your client. For example, if I tell
them that their LDAP server connection is unencrypted, so what? I instead
look at the use cases from the business requirements and ensure that they
are properly demonstrated in the code, and if as a side bar to that process,
I discover weaknesses, I will drop them in, so that:

* The user login process may allow attackers to view all credentials and
thus log in as anyone they want, including the LDAP manager. This destroys
any credibility of logs, transactions and may allow widespread destruction
or alteration of data.

Now the business has a reason to fix my finding as it¹s related to a
business process and asset they care about.

This is why I¹m not convinced its necessary to have language specific
chapters. Most of the information in those chapters applies will apply to
all languages / frameworks. You can always jump over examples you¹re not
interested in, or you can learn from the other language¹s issues to avoid
them in your own. 

Thanks,
Andrew


On 1/12/07 10:25 AM, "James Kist" <kist at meridiansecurity.net> wrote:

> What is the desired structure for the best practices section? How about
> something like this:
>  
> Vulnerability (with a link to the section that describes the vulnerability)
> Best practice 1 - Description (includes how and to what level the
> vulnerability is addressed by this best practice)
> Best practice 1 - Code example (if applicable)
> Best practice 2 - Description
> Best practice 2 - Code example (if applicable)
>  
> etc.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [mailto:owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Eoin
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: Mark Roxberry
> Cc: Owasp-codereview at lists.owasp.org; owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-testing] Fwd: Code review Structure
> 
> Hi Mark,
> i believe there is a design section but it has not been touched yet:
>  
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Code_Review_Guide_Table_of_Contents
>  
> Designing for security (section).
>  
> You you consider putting a .NET design section within this.
>  
> Authoring the .NET best practice section would be great!! I'll put your name
> beside it.
> thanks,
> Eoin
> 
>  
> On 11/01/07, Mark Roxberry <me at markroxberry.net> wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I'll do .NET Code Review Best Practices.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Can I include Design Guidance as a section?  Or maybe we need to  consider
>> Secure Application Design for an OWASP project (or do we have plans  for this
>> already)?  An example, in ASP.NET <http://asp.net/>  2.0, when do we
>> recommend using the  MembershipProviders and integrating with .NET framework
>> before rolling your  own access control system.  Design guidance would
>> outline the  scenarios for each security design.  What do you think?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I'll post a topic list by tomorrow.
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Mark
>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>  
>>> From: Eoin <mailto:eoin.keary at owasp.org>
>>>  
>>> To: owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org  <mailto:owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org> ;
>>> Owasp-codereview at lists.owasp.org
>>>  
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 10:47  AM
>>>  
>>> Subject: [Owasp-testing] Fwd: Code  review Structure
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>> Below is the current structure of the code review guide.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> If anyone would like to take on a section (improve a section/add  more info)
>>> please let me know and ill pen you in for it.
>>>  
>>> thanks,
>>>  
>>> Eoin
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Methodology  
>>>> Introduction  
>>>> 
>>>> Steps and  Roles
>>>> 
>>>> Code Review  Processes
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Design review 
>>>> Designing for security
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Examples by Vulnerability
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>  
>>>> Buffer Overruns and  Overflows
>>>> 
>>>> OS Injection  
>>>> 
>>>> SQL Injection 
>>>> 
>>>> Data  Validation
>>>> 
>>>> Error Handling
>>>> 
>>>> Logging issues
>>>> 
>>>> The Secure Code  Environment
>>>> 
>>>> Transaction  Analysis
>>>> 
>>>> Authorization 
>>>> 
>>>> Authentication
>>>> 
>>>> Session  Integrity
>>>> 
>>>> Cross Site Request  Forgery
>>>> 
>>>> Cryptography  
>>>> 
>>>> Dangerous HTTP  Methods
>>>> 
>>>> Race  Conditions
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Language specific best practice
>>> 
>>> Java  
>>>> Inner  classes
>>>> 
>>>> Class  comparison
>>>> 
>>>> Cloneable  classes
>>>> 
>>>> Serializable  classes
>>>> 
>>>> Package scope and  encapsulation
>>>> 
>>>> Mutable  objects
>>>> 
>>>> Private methods &  circumvention
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .NET  
>>> 
>>> PHP  
>>> 
>>> Automating Code Reviews
>>>> Preface  
>>>> 
>>>> Reasons for using automated  tools
>>>> 
>>>> Education and cultural  change
>>>> 
>>>> Tool Deployment  Model
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> References  
>>> 
>>>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-testing/attachments/20070117/649a0619/attachment.html 


More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list