[Owasp-testing] [Owasp-leaders] OWASP Testing Guide v4: start-up

daniel cuthbert daniel.cuthbert at owasp.org
Mon Jul 19 03:47:46 EDT 2010


"- Create a test case for each test to perform using O2 platform"

I think this could be a massive project on its own, whilst I love the
O2 platform as much as Dinis, I'm wondering why the need to have a
test case for each approach?



On 18 July 2010 14:43, Matteo Meucci <matteo.meucci at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> thanks to the OWASP Foundation, it's time to start-up with a new OWASP
> Testing Guide project!
>
> Introduction and Project purpose for v4:
> ============================
> The OWASP Testing Guide v3 includes a "best practice" penetration
> testing framework which users can implement in their own organizations
> and a "low level" penetration testing guide that describes techniques
> for testing most common web application and web service security
> issues. Nowadays the Testing Guide has become the standard to perform
> a Web Application Penetration Testing and many Companies all around
> the world have adopted it.
> It is vital for the project mantaining an updated project that
> represents the state of the art for WebAppSec.
>
> Project Roadmap
> =============
> - 1st phase: Brainstorming
> 18th July 2010: starting a brainstorming with the OWASP Leaders and
> project contributors to share goals and project's objectives.
> The following are the main improvements we have to realize:
> - Inserting new testing techniques, OWASP Top10 update: HTTP Verb
> tampering, HTTP Parameter Pollutions, URL Redirection, Insecure Direct
> Object References, Insecure Cryptographic Storage, Failure to Restrict
> URL Access, Insufficient Transport Layer Protection, Unvalidated
> Redirects and Forwards.
> - Review and improve all the sections in v3,
> - Create a more readable guide, eliminating some sections that are not
> really useful, Rationalize some sections as Session Management
> Testing,
> - Create a new section: Client side security and Firefox extensions testing.
> - Create a test case for each test to perform using O2 platform
>
> - 2nd phase: Set-up the team
> 15th August: Introduce the new project to the OWASP mailing list
> seeking for contributors. We need to involve also the final users of
> the Testing Guide (for example Banking Companies to understand how
> they would like to improve that).
>
> - 3rd phase: Create a new Index
> 15th September: creating a new table of contents of the OTGv4
> assigning a task for each contributor.
> Here is the v3 Index:
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Testing_Guide_v3_Table_of_Contents
>
> - 4th phase:  Writing and reviewing
> 1st October 2010: Starting writing
> 1st November 2010:Starting the first review phase,
> 15th November 2010: Starting writing articles II phase,
> 1st December 2010: Starting the second review phase,
> 15th December 2010: Create the RC1,
> 15th January 2011: Release the version 4.
>
> 1st phase
> =======
> Now, we are at the 1st phase, and I think this phase it's the most
> important to create a solid project as we saw from the last versions.
> This time I found really important to open a debate about the following item.
>
> - OWASP vulnerabilities -
> The OWASP Testing Guide checklist represents the set of controls to
> test: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Testing_Checklist
> We divided it into 10 categories (Information Gath, Config. Mng,
> Authentication, etc...). For each category we tell what test to
> perfom.
> The last column tells you what vulnerability you can find if the test
> demonstrate a weakness of the application.
> Now I see that the list of vulnerabilities is not alligned with all
> the OWASP Guides.
> Imo the point is that is foundamental to create a list of OWASP
> Vulnerabilities shared between the OWASP projects. Why?
> Because the OWASP DevGuide, Code Review and Testing Guide should be
> linked to this common KB: in this way the 3 projects are linked
> between the others and Companies can uderstand for each vuln how to
> protect from this vuln (Dev), how to review that code (CR), and how to
> test the app running (TG). Then because it is very important for the
> Companies have a full list of the possible WebAppSec vulns (I think
> there is a lack now).
>
> At this time we have: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:Vulnerability
> But this list does not represents what I mean.
> I would like to start from the OWASP Testing Guide checklist and
> collect all the vulnerabiities we can find from the last column, add
> the new ones. Then maybe Eoin's team should add the white box
> vulnerabilities: we know some are the same of the black box
> assessment, but others can be found only perfoming a Code Review, for
> example "Backdoor in the code". Then the Dev Guide team should point
> to this set of vulnerabilities telling how to write code to protect
> the application for each vulnerability.
>
> What do you think about that?
>
> Thanks,
> Mat
>
> --
> Matteo Meucci
> OWASP-Italy Chair, CISSP, CISA
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Italy
> OWASP Testing Guide lead
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Testing_Guide
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>


More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list