[Owasp-testing] Add new tools

Vishal Garg vishalgrg at gmail.com
Mon Sep 21 18:08:08 EDT 2009

Hi Juan,

Thanks for your suggestions on OWASP Tools Project. This feedback is very
useful to us as an assurance that we are working in the right direction and
to pin point any issues that we might have missed. The points mentioned in
the mail below are very valid points and infact we have already discussed
some of these points on the project's mailing list. Please see my comments
in the mail below.


On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Calderon, Juan Carlos (GE, Corporate,
consultant) <juan.calderon at ge.com> wrote:

> Hello Guys
> Here are a few challenges and proposed solutions as I though on this in
> the past for OWASP.
> All the time I see a tool list my first question is "which of this ones
> (regardless of license) is best?", I am a lazy person and wonder this so
> I don't have to spend lots of time with the ones in very early stages or
> with very limited scope. And that question is the one OWASP cannot
> answer without falling in "preferring" (no mater how big, colorful and
> blinking the disclaimer is) an specific tool. To solve this problem I
> recommend you not only list the tool, but link to sites with reviews to
> that tool.

Actually I myself had the problem of finding a best tool for a particular
job and that was my main reason to start this project. Therefore we just
wouldn't be listing the tools in different categories, but we'll also be
defining a rating criteria to rate these tools. We are still working on
defining the rating criteria and the different possible ways to rate these
 - We may rate the tools ourselves.
 - We may seek other users' feedback based on their experiences
 - and we may also seek other independent reviews, as suggested by you here.

> Notice that regardless of how useful is one over another we should
> always list them alphabetically or any other "democratic" way without
> taking in consideration those reviews. People will tend to add their
> old, clunky or to-be tool in the list as an intend to catch attention
> and there is nothing you can do to remove them. But at least having
> reviews from other independent sources will put them apart since it is
> fairly hard they have any.

As we'll be listing both commercial and open source tools, we want to keep
this as unbiased as we can, and thus would only be listing the tools in
alphabetical order. We'll be listing the tools in different categories as
mentioned by you below and any information related to the tools would
potentially be listed in a tabular form. So the intended structure would be
to have the category as a heading (such as scanners, sniffers, proxy, WAF
etc.), then listing all the tools in that category in an alphabetical order
along with all the properties of a tool in a tabular form.

> The idea is to not allow the list to be too big and clutter with useless
> or partially working tools or it will be easily dismissed.

We have decided to include only the release quality webapp related tools in
the list. We are also going to take great care that only properly working
tools are listed here.

> Mentioning the license is fine but do not use that as a category, use
> the tool type instead (port scanner, sniffer, App Firewall, etc). I mean
> putting that information in a table as the license type that is fine but
> do not put it as a header before the actual list or you will tend to
> have "Commercial" before "Open Source". But if the tools are listed
> alphabetically and the license is mentioned in a column then maybe you
> have a good mixture to avoid any appearance of biasing the list (I know
> is not the objective).
> Having a table is also a good idea as it allows you to show much more
> information like the technologies and platforms supported, the version
> and release level (Alpha, Beta, RC, production) and much more.

All this has already been discussed on the project mailing list and would
soon appear on Wiki as well.

> One final one, specialize the list, this is, make sure you focus
> exclusively in tools for web applications as there are hundreds of tools
> for network security and you will end up being another security tools
> list on the net.

Yes, you're right, and surely we'll only be discussing about tools that are
related to web application security and nothing else.

> Good luck, I hope it helps,
> Juan C Calderon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [mailto:owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Pavol Luptak
> Sent: Domingo, 20 de Septiembre de 2009 04:11 p.m.
> To: dinis cruz
> Cc: Paulo Coimbra; owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-testing] Add new tools
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:05:12PM +0100, dinis cruz wrote:
> >    This information on tools is valuable to our community, the
> challenge is
> >    to do it in a way that we keep our 'vendor independence'
> For this reason I think we should distinguish between opensource and
> commercial tools (maybe prefer opensource tools).
> Pavol
> --
> Pavol Luptak, CISSP, CEH
> OWASP Slovakia chapter leader
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Slovakia
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-testing mailing list
> Owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-testing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-testing/attachments/20090921/f4148afd/attachment.html 

More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list