[Owasp-topten] Feedback on OWASP 2010 Top 10 (Sec. Misconfig)
rd at rd1.net
Tue Nov 17 08:55:31 EST 2009
Yes that helps. Some of what you described as misconfiguration is what
I was describing as architecture. Is there multiple tiers, what
services and roles do each tier provide, what communications are used
between the systems and components. Are insecure services and protocols
used, or services that are inappropriate for the architecture, such as
SMB or NFS on the web server. Is there XML gateway or Web App firewall
would included. Frameworks used is also architecture. Many (not all) of
these architect issues will come to light with a manual review of
automated scans. Why not broaden the title to include insecure
-- Ralph Durkee, CISSP, GSEC, GCIH, GSNA, GPEN
Principal Security Consultant
Dave Wichers wrote:
> My thoughts on security misconfiguration is that it covers the
> configuration of everything on the server that is hosting the web
> application as well as anything else in front of that server that is
> protecting it (at least at the app layer for the 'in front' components).
> And it includes the configuration (again at the app layer) of any
> back-end components accessed by the web app, like the database/DB
> So, for the app server, this includes the OS, the app server, the app
> itself, and any components/frameworks used by the app that are
> configurable. For a front end component, like an XML gateway, or App
> Firewall, then I'd be primarily focused on their app layer configuration
> (although their network configuration is important too).
> As an organization, we recommend increased focus on the app layer
> configuration of all the components involved since most organizations
> tend to currently focus on the network layer components. As part of this
> configuration, keeping up with the latest version of all the software
> components involved is also very important as half the patches issued
> are fixing security flaws, even in libraries, like Struts, Spring, etc.
> I would expect both app and network layer scanning to help detect
> security configuration flaws, as well as manual analysis. Neither can do
> this well on its own, but manual analysis is probably the most important
> aspect for the app layer.
> I don't know if this clarifies my thoughts on the subject, but hopefully
> it does.
> I'm not sure what you mean by architecture issues that can be detected
> by review of automated scan results.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owasp-topten-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [mailto:owasp-topten-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Durkee
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: owasp-topten at lists.owasp.org
> Subject: [Owasp-topten] Feedback on OWASP 2010 Top 10 (Sec. Misconfig)
> Bringing back the "Security Misconfiguration" certainly deserves some
> discussion. As I remember the logic for taking it out was that it was
> more in the realm of Web Sever vulnerabilities then Web Application. I
> agree on the risk rating, but if you consider that these vulnerabilities
> should be easily detected with host based and network based
> vulnerabilities scanners, as oppose to Web Application Scanners. As I'm
> thinking this one doesn't belong. Otherwise we could include platform
> issues as well.
> However on a related thread of thought, Web Application architecture
> issues are specific to web applications, and probably deserve to be
> included. Although I would have to say that most of the architecture
> issues could be detected by a manual review of automated scans.
> Maybe there's a third option if there's a reasonable way to combine the
> Web App architecture and configuration issues into a reasonable cohesive
> -- Ralph Durkee
> Owasp-topten mailing list
> Owasp-topten at lists.owasp.org
More information about the Owasp-topten