[Owasp-testing] Add new tools

daniel cuthbert daniel.cuthbert at owasp.org
Tue Sep 22 10:22:11 EDT 2009

When Mark and I first started the testing guide project, we did talk about
the tool aspect heavily.
OWASP needs to be unbiased but at the same time we are in a position to
offer guidance on what tool does the job correctly. A OWASP Tools DB would
be a great way, but again we'd need to be pretty strict in the way
information is added by everyone. Vendors can be sneaky :0)

I'd love to offer my help with this, so count me in if you need me..

2009/9/22 Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>

> Great thread and comments
> Technically speaking how are you going to store the tool's metadata?
> We really need this to be on a 'consumable format' so that we can create
> multiple WIKI views.
> I recomend that you use the new 'Template driven WIKI' solution we came up
> at the GPC to manage Owasp projects :)
> You should also check Wikipedia for examples on how to present this type of
> information
> Dinis Cruz
> On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:08, Vishal Garg <vishalgrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Regards
> Vishal
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Calderon, Juan Carlos (GE, Corporate,
> consultant) < <juan.calderon at ge.com>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
> tools:
>  - 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>
>> owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org
>> [mailto: <owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Slovakia
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-testing mailing list
>>  <Owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org>Owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-testing>
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-testing
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090922/12bf54c8/attachment.html 

More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list