[Owasp-topten] [Owasp-leaders] OWASP Top 2017 - Data Call

Colin Watson colin.watson at owasp.org
Thu Jun 23 16:01:29 UTC 2016


Dave/Top Ten project

Related to the recent post to the leader's list about a vendor paper...

There is a significant body of knowledge about application vulnerability
types, and some general consensus about identification and naming. But
issues relating to the misuse of valid functionality (which may be caused
by design flaws rather than implementation bugs) are less well defined.
Yet these problems are seen day-in, day-out by web application owners.
Excessive abuse of functionality is commonly misreported as application
denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, such as HTTP flooding or application
resource exhaustion, when in fact the DoS is a side-effect. Most of these
problems seen regularly by web application owners are not listed in any
OWASP Top Ten or in any other top issue list or dictionary.

Thus why the "OWASP Automated `Threats to Web Applications" project was
created. It is not a "Top X" list, but we wonder if something like "Misuse
of functionality" might be a candidate threat? I don't know what the top
11-25 were that didn't make it into the top 10 in 2013, but it would be
nice to know.

I am not sure many web application pen test data sources will document
these vulnerabilities as report findings, despite some of the automated
threats being the most time-consuming operational threats to web
applications, based on conversations with web app owners and operators.

Regards

Colin Watson
OWASP Automated Threats to Web Applications project leader

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Automated_Threats_to_Web_Applications




>
> While diversity is always a concern, I think the project is well known
> enough that diversity won't be a problem. If, after 45 days or so, we don't
> see the kind of diversity we're expecting, we might specifically reach out
> to sources in different communities to get the diversity we are looking for.
>
>
>
> And to be clear, we are looking for vulnerability data, not attack data.
> At least with this data call. If people want to submit attack data that
> would be interesting as well, and that info could be used to help us
> calculate the likelihood of (successful) attack. But that's a different
> angle from the likelihood of having a vuln in the first place.  We actually
> discussed during the last top 10 update if there were any good sources of
> attack data, and we couldn't come up with any then. Maybe we can now?
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Tony UV <tonyuv at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> Instead of an open call, how about the following.  Open calls for data
> places the level of involvement on the respondent/participant and if there
> isn't a diversity in involvement then the data and hence the project
> suffers.
>
>
>
> Let's map out who is seeing payloads in web requests and ping them for
> their data. Vendors in the following space may have logs related to
> malicious http requests. These vendors include makers of WAFs, Sec
> researchers managing honeypots, IPS manufacturers whose researchers author
> web based signatures, even makers of agent based defensive SW that also
> have signatures related to web based attacks.   These would be data points
> from infrastructure and makers of 'defender' type systems.  Next we could
> have another data set from those managing infrastructures in FI, banking,
> Federal, Higher Ed, Retail, info services, etc. getting logs from their
> SIEMs, can allow us to get logs from practioners.  If they are concerned
> about privacy, we can say that their participation can serve as a project
> sponsorship and comp them two tickets to regional APPSEC.  Also we can be
> transparent with the methodology on how we collect and use their data.  In
> reality privacy is really not a factor as most of the legit and malicious
> http payloads won't be carrying PII.  We can take both vendor product and
> Practioner data and through it up to SumoLogic free instance and run data
> analytics against all collected patterns. Sumo has the abilities to has the
> ability to hash values from any part of the web request so we can solicit
> that in case practioners offering Practioner data are worried about their
> collected web requests revealing any info to OWASP project volunteers.
>
>
>
> I think that the OWASP Top Ten can finally get an industry support in the
> form of diversified data. I think the way to do this is to solicit requests
> and 'sell' participation.  Volunteers from the project and new recruits can
> have different tasks of recruiting practitioners, tech companies to support
> with data contributions or reviewing the data over a free SaaS based data
> analytics engine. If left as a call for data, versus project leaders or new
> volunteers from OWASP pursuing active data contributions, we may be looking
> at less diversified data points.  I would think this more aggressive model
> for data inclusion would actually help to make the project even more
> marketable.
>
>
>
> My 0.03.
>
>
>
> Tony UV
>
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM -0700, "Jonathan Carter" <
> jonathan.carter at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> In the mobile top 10, we had challenges around diversity of data sources.
> Is there a plan for who to try and pull in?
>
>
>
> On May 21, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
> This is great stuff! Love the open call for data and publishing all the
> provided info. I imagine they'll be some very interesting data mining of
> submitted data in addition to the aggregate top 10 results.
>
>
>
> I spread the word on Twitter too
>
> https://twitter.com/_mwc/status/734091285787643904
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 20, 2016, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't you know it, a have a typo right in the title of my email :-).
> This is obviously a data call for the next update to the OWASP Top 10,
> which is expected to be released in 2017. Looking forward to your input.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:31 PM, <dave.wichers at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> The OWASP Top 10 project is launching its effort to update the Top 10
> again. The current version was released in 2013, and so this update is
> expected to be the 2016 or more likely 2017 release. This time around, we
> are making an open data call so anyone with application vulnerability
> statistics can contribute their data to the project. To make it easier for
> the project to consume this contributed data, we are requesting it be
> provided via this Google form.
>
> DEADLINE: Data must be submitted by July 20, 2016.
>
> As an OWASP project, we strive to make everything about every project as
> open as possible. For this release of the Top 10, we are going to publish
> all the contributed data so that anyone can review it to understand what
> input was considered to produce this update, and for other uses as well. We
> could imagine other groups/projects making use of this data for other
> reasons, so we believe publishing this data will have multiple benefits.
>
> WARNING: You acknowledge that by contributing data to this update of the
> Top 10, that you authorize its publication. DO NOT CONTRIBUTE anything you
> don’t want to become public.
>
> Guidance on what data we are looking for:
>
> We are looking for web application vulnerability statistics collected by
> your organization:
> • In web applications you assessed.
> • During the years 2014, 2015, or both.
> • These vulnerabilities can be in the code itself, the libraries the
> applications use, or in the configuration of the environment the
> applications run in.
>
> We are NOT interested in OS, or network level vulnerabilities. We ARE
> interested in vulnerabilities in any SQL code running in any databases that
> back the applications being assessed and the database accounts used to run
> this code, but are generally NOT interested in security issues in the
> configuration of the database server itself.
>
> Use your best judgment here to try to keep the data submitted relevant to
> the project. If you have a question or aren’t sure, just ask us for
> clarification.
>
> There are 5 pages of questions, most of which are very short. The long one
> is page 4, which asks for all the vulnerability statistics. If you prefer,
> you can send your answers to the questions on page 4 via email to
> dave.wichers at owasp.org but please submit the rest of your input via this
> Google form.
>
> I've invited you to fill out the form *OWASP Top 10 - 2016 Data Call*. To
> fill it out, visit:
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1sBMHN5nBicjr5xSo04xkdP5JlCnXFcKFCgEHjwPGuLw/viewform?c=0&w=1&usp=mail_form_link
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates | @_mwc <https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=_mwc>
>
> OWASP Global Board
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-topten/attachments/20160623/31712988/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-topten mailing list