Mobile Top 10 2016-Top 10 - Revision history

Jonathan Carter at 01:13, 14 February 2017

2017-02-14T01:13:10Z

Jonathan Carter at 01:09, 14 February 2017

2017-02-14T01:09:57Z

Jonathan Carter: /* Tell Us What You Think */

2016-03-05T11:39:25Z

‎Tell Us What You Think

Jonathan Carter at 05:31, 5 March 2016

2016-03-05T05:31:04Z

Jonathan Carter at 04:12, 5 March 2016

2016-03-05T04:12:33Z

Jonathan Carter: Created page with "Watch this space... ;-)"

2016-02-27T04:15:40Z

Created page with "Watch this space... ;-)"

New page

Watch this space... ;-)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:13, 14 February 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~=== How Did the List Get Made? ===~~
−	# We wanted to know what the community wanted in the next Mobile Top Ten list and what they thought about the last. We published a [http://bit.ly/1sihkkE survey] and shared the [https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/forms/d/1WMEbjVgXU4VkjHP5AcW934D9EI0_XQ5vmjb-Y5liMQY/viewanalytics results] with everyone.
−	~~# We issued a [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/File:MobileTopTen2015-CallForData.pdf Call for Data] and aggressively pursued many different vendors and consultants for raw data.~~
−	# We had a huge response by vendors and consultants. We collected lots of data about the last years vulnerabilities from a number of different vendors and consultant. That raw data can be found [https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d143o6tbkdx4w4l/AAAQlpmnCpHCgiBqZkgXPSTKa?dl=0 here].
−	# Over the coming months, we then analyzed the data. Lots of different contributors did their own analysis and compared results. [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Mobile2015Commentary Here] is a sample of the color commentary on the data.
−	~~# Ultimately, we agreed on the findings and published [https://www.owasp.org/images/9/96/OWASP_Mobile_Top_Ten_2015_-_Final_Synthesis.pdf key findings] from the data that we all agreed upon.~~
−	~~# Next, we started coming up with a [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Projects/OWASP_Mobile_Security_Project_-2015_Scratchpad consensus] of what we wanted in the next revision of the Mobile Top Ten.~~
−	~~# Results were collected and a release candidate got released.~~
−	~~# We examined the results from the release candidate and concluded that we achieved what we set out to do for 2016~~
−	~~# We published the list officially and moved it from release to final stage~~
−
	{\| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0" width="100%;"		{\| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0" width="100%;"
	\| style="width: 173px;" \| {{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=1\|language=en}}M1 - Improper Platform Usage		\| style="width: 173px;" \| {{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=1\|language=en}}M1 - Improper Platform Usage

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 === How Did the List Get Made? ===
 # We wanted to know what the community wanted in the next Mobile Top Ten list and what they thought about the last. We published a [http://bit.ly/1sihkkE survey] and shared the [https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/forms/d/1WMEbjVgXU4VkjHP5AcW934D9EI0_XQ5vmjb-Y5liMQY/viewanalytics results] with everyone.
@@ Line 9: / Line 6: @@
 # Ultimately, we agreed on the findings and published [https://www.owasp.org/images/9/96/OWASP_Mobile_Top_Ten_2015_-_Final_Synthesis.pdf key findings] from the data that we all agreed upon.
 # Next, we started coming up with a [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Projects/OWASP_Mobile_Security_Project_-2015_Scratchpad consensus] of what we wanted in the next revision of the Mobile Top Ten.
+# Results were collected and a release candidate got released.
-=== [https://goo.gl/1evB4e Tell Us] What You Think ===
+# We examined the results from the release candidate and concluded that we achieved what we set out to do for 2016
-After looking over the list below, fill out [https://goo.gl/1evB4e this survey]. Results are being collected until April 15 2016. The results from the survey will be published and shared with the group to finalize the Mobile Top Ten 2016.
+# We published the list officially and moved it from release to final stage
 {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0" width="100%;"

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 === [https://goo.gl/1evB4e Tell Us] What You Think ===
-After looking over the list below, fill out [https://goo.gl/1evB4e|this survey]. Results are being collected until April 15 2016. The results from the survey will be published and shared with the group to finalize the Mobile Top Ten 2016.
+After looking over the list below, fill out [https://goo.gl/1evB4e this survey]. Results are being collected until April 15 2016. The results from the survey will be published and shared with the group to finalize the Mobile Top Ten 2016.
 {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0" width="100%;"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 5 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	== Release Candidate ==
		+	The list below represents a release candidate of the OWASP Mobile Top Ten 2016. Have a look at the list and please provide feedback. The release candidate will have a 30 day feedback window for everyone to provide feedback before things are finalized.
		+
		+	=== How Did the List Get Made? ===
		+	# We wanted to know what the community wanted in the next Mobile Top Ten list and what they thought about the last. We published a [http://bit.ly/1sihkkE survey] and shared the [https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/forms/d/1WMEbjVgXU4VkjHP5AcW934D9EI0_XQ5vmjb-Y5liMQY/viewanalytics results] with everyone.
		+	# We issued a [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/File:MobileTopTen2015-CallForData.pdf Call for Data] and aggressively pursued many different vendors and consultants for raw data.
		+	# We had a huge response by vendors and consultants. We collected lots of data about the last years vulnerabilities from a number of different vendors and consultant. That raw data can be found [https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d143o6tbkdx4w4l/AAAQlpmnCpHCgiBqZkgXPSTKa?dl=0 here].
		+	# Over the coming months, we then analyzed the data. Lots of different contributors did their own analysis and compared results. [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Mobile2015Commentary Here] is a sample of the color commentary on the data.
		+	# Ultimately, we agreed on the findings and published [https://www.owasp.org/images/9/96/OWASP_Mobile_Top_Ten_2015_-_Final_Synthesis.pdf key findings] from the data that we all agreed upon.
		+	# Next, we started coming up with a [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Projects/OWASP_Mobile_Security_Project_-2015_Scratchpad consensus] of what we wanted in the next revision of the Mobile Top Ten.
		+
		+	=== [https://goo.gl/1evB4e Tell Us] What You Think ===
		+	After looking over the list below, fill out [https://goo.gl/1evB4e\|this survey]. Results are being collected until April 15 2016. The results from the survey will be published and shared with the group to finalize the Mobile Top Ten 2016.

	{\| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0" width="100%;"		{\| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0" width="100%;"

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:12, 5 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Watch~~ this ~~space~~... ;-)	+
		+	{\| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0" width="100%;"
		+	\| style="width: 173px;" \| {{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=1\|language=en}}M1 - Improper Platform Usage
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This category covers misuse of a platform feature or failure to use platform security controls. It might include Android intents, platform permissions, misuse of TouchID, the Keychain, or some other security control that is part of the mobile operating system.
		+	There are several ways that mobile apps can experience this risk.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=2\|language=en}}M2 - Insecure Data Storage
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This new category is a combination of M2 + M4 from Mobile Top Ten 2014. This covers insecure data storage and unintended data leakage.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=3\|language=en}}M3 - Insecure Communication
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This covers poor handshaking, incorrect SSL versions, weak negotiation, cleartext communication of sensitive assets, etc.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=4\|language=en}}M4 - Insecure Authentication
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This category captures notions of authenticating the end user or bad session management. This can include:
		+
		+	* Failing to identify the user at all when that should be required
		+	* Failure to maintain the user's identity when it is required
		+	* Weaknesses in session management
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=5\|language=en}}M5 - Insufficient Cryptography
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	The code applies cryptography to a sensitive information asset. However, the cryptography is insufficient in some way. Note that anything and everything related to TLS or SSL goes in M3. Also, if the app fails to use cryptography at all when it should, that probably belongs in M2. This category is for issues where cryptography was attempted, but it wasn't done correctly.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=6\|language=en}}M6 - Insecure Authorization
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This is a category to capture any failures in authorization (e.g., authorization decisions in the client side, forced browsing, etc.). It is distinct from authentication issues (e.g., device enrolment, user identification, etc.).
		+
		+	If the app does not authenticate users at all in a situation where it should (e.g., granting anonymous access to some resource or service when authenticated and authorized access is required), then that is an authentication failure not an authorization failure.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=7\|language=en}}M7 - Client Code Quality
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This was the "Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs", one of our lesser-used categories. This would be the catch-all for code-level implementation problems in the mobile client. That's distinct from server-side coding mistakes. This would capture things like buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, and various other code-level mistakes where the solution is to rewrite some code that's running on the mobile device.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=8\|language=en}}M8 - Code Tampering
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This category covers binary patching, local resource modification, method hooking, method swizzling, and dynamic memory modification.
		+
		+	Once the application is delivered to the mobile device, the code and data resources are resident there. An attacker can either directly modify the code, change the contents of memory dynamically, change or replace the system APIs that the application uses, or modify the application's data and resources. This can provide the attacker a direct method of subverting the intended use of the software for personal or monetary gain.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=9\|language=en}}M9 - Reverse Engineering
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	This category includes analysis of the final core binary to determine its source code, libraries, algorithms, and other assets. Software such as IDA Pro, Hopper, otool, and other binary inspection tools give the attacker insight into the inner workings of the application. This may be used to exploit other nascent vulnerabilities in the application, as well as revealing information about back end servers, cryptographic constants and ciphers, and intellectual property.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|-
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkBegin\|year=2016\|risk=10\|language=en}}M10 - Extraneous Functionality
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:RoundedBoxLinkEnd\|year=2016}}
		+	\|{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxBegin\|year=2016}}
		+	Often, developers include hidden backdoor functionality or other internal development security controls that are not intended to be released into a production environment. For example, a developer may accidentally include a password as a comment in a hybrid app. Another example includes disabling of 2-factor authentication during testing.
		+
		+	{{Mobile Top 10:GrayBoxEnd\|year=2016}}