[Owasp-testing] Can you please give me some guidence on the Business Logic Section?

Andrew Muller andrew at ionize.com.au
Thu Jan 3 23:40:22 UTC 2013

There has always been a lot of confusion of the purpose of the Business Logic section and including both Eoin's and James' definitons would help clarify its purpose. 

There is also the other question raised by David, which relates to how we write test cases. A test case should simple and testable. The most understandable security test cases are those that test for a specific vulnerability or class of vulnerabilties. The more specific, the less confusion for the tester and the application owner when they receive the report. 


----- Original Message -----

From: "Eoin" <eoin.keary at owasp.org> 
To: "James McGovern" <james.mcgovern at hp.com> 
Cc: "David Fern" <dfern at verizon.net>, "Andrew Muller" <andrew at ionize.com.au>, owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org 
Sent: Friday, 4 January, 2013 4:12:29 AM 
Subject: Re: [Owasp-testing] Can you please give me some guidence on the Business Logic Section? 

Business logic testing/verification: 
ensure the app only does what is is designed to do and nothing more. Anything more (which it was not designed to do) may introduce a security issue as it breaks the business process the software was designed to reflect. - owasp code review guide v2 2013 

Eoin Keary 
Owasp Global Board 
+353 87 977 2988 

On 3 Jan 2013, at 12:46, "McGovern, James" < james.mcgovern at hp.com > wrote: 

I think the challenge is observing the fact that the phrase: Business Logic is heavily overloaded in all of the three links provided. The traditional “infosec” view defines a lot more things under the business logic banner than say a traditional software view would do. 
May I propose that we focus our usage of the term towards concepts of the business domain itself? For example, if you are developing an insurance quoting application, the business logic would be comprised of the rules and calculations required to price a combination of drivers and vehicles. The stuff regarding AuthN, AuthZ, etc would be outside of it. 
If you look at calculations for say taxes, we would then test for invariants. This could include looking at how validation is handled, the order in which processes/steps are executed and of course transactional considerations (e.g. ACID). 

From: owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org [ mailto:owasp-testing-bounces at lists.owasp.org ] On Behalf Of David Fern 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:38 AM 
To: Andrew Muller 
Cc: owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org 
Subject: Re: [Owasp-testing] Can you please give me some guidence on the Business Logic Section? 

Here is where the lists came from and I like them: 

    Business Logic CWES - http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/840.html 

    7 Business Flaws - https://www.whitehatsec.com/assets/WP_bizlogic092407.pdf 

    Busines Logic Attack Vectors - http://www.ntobjectives.com/go/business-logic-attack-vectors-white-paper/      

The "Propoposed" came from - https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Testing_Guide_v4_Table_of_Contents  and this is what I thought I was to write to but then I started researching and found the other three. 

I am just not clear on which type of list I should use for the driving force of this section: the weaknesses(CWE), how to test, or risk   


What fits the guide best? 


I think once I get the groups thoughts on which way to go the other catagoies will be added in infomation and I can look through and use other related parts of the TOC as you indicated.    


Any thoughts?   


I like this section but an having trouble organizing. 



David :) 

From: Andrew Muller < andrew at ionize.com.au > 
To: David Fern < dfern at verizon.net > 
Cc: owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org 
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [Owasp-testing] Can you please give me some guidence on the Business Logic Section? 

Hi David, 

  Looks like a great compilation of business logic weaknesses and attacks. How did you derive the list from each of the four sources? i.e. why did you pick those weaknesses from the CWE? 


My comments are: 

1) there is a lot of commonality between the four sources (as well as other areas within the Test Guide TOC, e.g. weak password recovery, see 4.4.11). Reconciling these will reduce the length of the list. 

2) some of the sources have different functions. CWE identifies a weakness that we can test for, the Business Logic Attack Vectors mostly identifies how these can be tested, and the Business Flaws mostly highlights the high level risks to the business if the vulnerability exists and is exploited. However, as some of the sources appear to be cross purpose, this isn't consistent. 

My understanding of how you add them to the TOC is to just add them and see if anyone argues :) However, a more active discussion of each section would be good too. 




From: "David Fern" < dfern at verizon.net > 
To: owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org 
Sent: Thursday, 3 January, 2013 11:55:37 AM 
Subject: [Owasp-testing] Can you please give me some guidence on the        Business Logic Section? 

Can you please give me some guidence on the Business Logic Section? 


I have done alot of research and come up with teh attached spread sheet and 4 different lists of Busines Logic issues. 


I have not been able to easily combine them. 


Should I just write to your list? 


Do I create a separate page for each?  


Any ideas/thoughts? 




Owasp-testing mailing list 
Owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org 


Owasp-testing mailing list 
Owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-testing/attachments/20130104/a046ac2e/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list