[Owasp-testing] Common numbering scheme/convention (formerly "top 10 & testing guide" thread)

Boberski, Michael [USA] boberski_michael at bah.com
Wed Jan 6 10:03:52 EST 2010


(resend -- including dev guide group this time, let's keep all these projects in the loop)

Mike B.


________________________________
From: Boberski, Michael [USA]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:01 AM
To: 'Dave Wichers'; Brad Causey; owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org; owasp-topten at lists.owasp.org
Cc: 'owasp-application-security-verification-standard at lists.owasp.org'
Subject: Common numbering scheme/convention (formerly "top 10 & testing guide" thread)

Hi Brad. I'm game for figuring out a common identifier scheme/convention, ideally before the end of the month or so, which is the current ETA to putting out a call for contributors to work on the next rev of the dev guide, which as Dave mentioned will be reorganized according to ASVS.

Maybe a first step is to take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/owasp-development-guide/wiki/Introduction?tm=6  I just replaced the ASVS' "A#" with "D#" but kept the title.  The "D#" is a Mike-ism/first cut at a dev guide numbering scheme, so 100% open to working with you on this, since obviously the thought crossed my mind something had to be figured out. We're also in the early stages of planning a next release of ASVS as Dave alludes to below as well, so now's a good time to talk about this, i.e. we could potentially also markup http://code.google.com/p/owasp-asvs/wiki/ASVS?tm=6  in a similar fashion.

Based on your email below, I generally think we should have a major/minor kinda scheme that starts with ASVS and goes to whatever:

OWASP-V[1-14]-[1-n,A,D,T,other]-[1-m,A,D,T,other]

i.e., as if one were expanding a tree control that when one got to a detailed verification requirement, would then have children nodes for e.g. development guide, testing guide, perhaps threats that the requirements map to like T10/CWE/WASC.

Let me know your thoughts, the above is just a first proposal, I may not be understanding what you need. We can use the above dev guide wiki to flesh this out, see how much things make sense as we go, thing look different from email/paper to clickable trees/widgets.

Best,

Mike B.


________________________________
From: owasp-topten-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:owasp-topten-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Dave Wichers
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:34 AM
To: Brad Causey; owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org; owasp-topten at lists.owasp.org
Cc: mike.boberski at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Owasp-topten] top 10 & testing guide

Brad,

OWASP is just starting a synchronization effort between the Top 10, ASVS, and all the Guides. We are trying to use the ASVS requirements as the baseline and then developing the dev guide and testing guide and code review against that outline.  However, we don't want to wreck what you guys have been doing with the testing guide #'s

Mike Boberski is working with Andrew van der Stock to launch an update effort to the Dev Guide. Can you work with Mike so he understands how you are using the OWASP finding #'s to see if we can move forward in a way that is not massively disruptive? Mike may not even be aware of the testing guide numbering scheme.

And we can also make sure that the dev guide covers everything you think needs to be covered (which hopefully already is covered in ASVS), and if not, maybe it needs to be updated too.

-Dave

From: owasp-topten-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:owasp-topten-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Brad Causey
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:59 PM
To: owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org; owasp-topten at lists.owasp.org
Subject: [Owasp-topten] top 10 & testing guide

First of all, sorry for the x-posting, but it seemed appropriate.

For those of you that don't know, I work in the financial sector and developed our organization's WAS testing procedures, documentation, and probably 80% of our whole WAS program from OWASP materials. Great stuff.

As matter of fact, each of our analysts has a LULU printed copy of the testing guide on their desks. When we write reports up, we use the OWASP-XX-XX as our classification mapping. For example:

Finding 1 - rXSS - OWASP-DV-001 - hxxp://www.vulnsite.com?msg=<http://www.vulnsite.com?msg=><blah blah, you get it> - screenshot1.png

When we write our long form reports, we use the text from the testing guide. It has really proven great for us and we've been doing this since v2 came out. In addition, we have previously used the top ten literature as supplementary in proving higher risk, higher priority items. That has worked great until now.....

A8 on the RC version of the Top Ten throws a nice shiny wrench into it all. Reason being, there isn't a corresponding OWASP-xx-xx classification that matches up to A8. Now I've been writing A8 up for some time, but it never had a nice-neat home in any of the Testing guide classifications.

Now that I've gotten past all that. I'd like to maybe discuss how, possibly in the future, the two projects could be somewhat more in sync. I'm not sure there is a good way to do that today, but it sure makes sense in my mind that all owaspy stuff have some overlap, and should avoid gaps such as the A8 vs OWASP-XX-XX situation.

Also I see some gaps here:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JdybrokZBAk/S0Nt5DVYHWI/AAAAAAAABvU/HXQSzzoRJu0/s1600-h/WASC.png

That aren't covered in any OWASP documentation, and should be. I'd like to get everyones' thoughts, and probably flames, on this stuff.



-Brad Causey
CISSP, MCSE, C|EH, CIFI, CGSP

http://www.owasp.org
--
Never underestimate the time, expense, and effort an opponent will expend to break a code. (Robert Morris)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-testing/attachments/20100106/576ea7d6/attachment.html 


More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list