Top 10 2013-Note About Risks - Revision history

Wichers at 16:15, 7 February 2017

2017-02-07T16:15:15Z

Wichers at 23:57, 11 September 2014

2014-09-11T23:57:14Z

T.Gigler: Added missing (last) paragraph: The following illustrates ... (value 1 to 3).

2013-06-20T19:49:11Z

Added missing (last) paragraph: The following illustrates ... (value 1 to 3).

T.Gigler: added '|year=2013 |language=en' at Top/BottomTemplates and internationalized |next= and prev=; added some '|language=en'

2013-06-14T21:49:52Z

added '|year=2013 |language=en' at Top/BottomTemplates and internationalized |next= and prev=; added some '|language=en'

Neil Smithline at 17:57, 14 June 2013

2013-06-14T17:57:37Z

T.Gigler: repaired the table ( is gone), included new Template "Top_10:SummaryTableTemplate|exploitability=2|prevalence=0|detectability=1|impact=2|year=2013" for internationalisation

2013-04-18T14:59:45Z

T.Gigler: added: {{Top_10:SubsectionTableEndTemplate}}

2013-04-14T09:59:56Z

added: {{Top_10:SubsectionTableEndTemplate}}

T.Gigler: Changed use of Template 'Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate': Replace Parameter 'number' by 'subsection' and 'position'

2013-04-14T09:42:35Z

Changed use of Template 'Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate': Replace Parameter 'number' by 'subsection' and 'position'

Neil Smithline at 00:19, 11 March 2013

2013-03-11T00:19:48Z

Neil Smithline at 23:45, 10 March 2013

2013-03-10T23:45:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:15, 7 February 2017
Line 11:		Line 11:


−	Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.	+	Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.

	The Risk Rating methodology for the Top 10 is based on the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology OWASP Risk Rating Methodology]. For each Top 10 item, we estimated the typical risk that each weakness introduces to a typical web application by looking at common likelihood factors and impact factors for each common weakness. We then rank ordered the Top 10 according to those weaknesses that typically introduce the most significant risk to an application.		The Risk Rating methodology for the Top 10 is based on the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology OWASP Risk Rating Methodology]. For each Top 10 item, we estimated the typical risk that each weakness introduces to a typical web application by looking at common likelihood factors and impact factors for each common weakness. We then rank ordered the Top 10 according to those weaknesses that typically introduce the most significant risk to an application.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 11 September 2014
Line 11:		Line 11:


−	Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 \|2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.	+	Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.

	The Risk Rating methodology for the Top 10 is based on the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology OWASP Risk Rating Methodology]. For each Top 10 item, we estimated the typical risk that each weakness introduces to a typical web application by looking at common likelihood factors and impact factors for each common weakness. We then rank ordered the Top 10 according to those weaknesses that typically introduce the most significant risk to an application.		The Risk Rating methodology for the Top 10 is based on the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology OWASP Risk Rating Methodology]. For each Top 10 item, we estimated the typical risk that each weakness introduces to a typical web application by looking at common likelihood factors and impact factors for each common weakness. We then rank ordered the Top 10 according to those weaknesses that typically introduce the most significant risk to an application.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 20 June 2013
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Note that this approach does not take the likelihood of the threat agent into account. Nor does it account for any of the various technical details associated with your particular application. Any of these factors could significantly affect the overall likelihood of an attacker finding and exploiting a particular vulnerability. This rating also does not take into account the actual impact on your business. Your organization will have to decide how much security risk from applications the organization is willing to accept given your culture, industry, and regulatory environment. The purpose of the OWASP Top 10 is not to do this risk analysis for you.		Note that this approach does not take the likelihood of the threat agent into account. Nor does it account for any of the various technical details associated with your particular application. Any of these factors could significantly affect the overall likelihood of an attacker finding and exploiting a particular vulnerability. This rating also does not take into account the actual impact on your business. Your organization will have to decide how much security risk from applications the organization is willing to accept given your culture, industry, and regulatory environment. The purpose of the OWASP Top 10 is not to do this risk analysis for you.
		+
		+	The following illustrates our calculation of the risk for A3: Cross-Site Scripting, as an example. XSS is so prevalent it warranted the only ‘VERY WIDESPREAD’ prevalence value of 0. All other risks ranged from widespread to uncommon (value 1 to 3).

	{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate\|year=2013\|language=en}}		{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate\|year=2013\|language=en}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Top_10_2013:TopTemplate
      |usenext=2013NextLink
-     |next=Details About Risk Factors
+     |next={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=detailsAboutRiskFactors|language=en}}
      |useprev=2013PrevLink
-     |prev=What's Next for Organizations
+     |prev={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=whatsNextforOrganizations|language=en}}
 }}
-{{Top_10:SubsectionTableBeginTemplate|type=main}} {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=freetext|position=firstWhole|title={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=itsAboutRisksNotWeaknesses}}|width=100%|year=2013}}
+{{Top_10:SubsectionTableBeginTemplate|type=main}} {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=freetext|position=firstWhole|title={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=itsAboutRisksNotWeaknesses|language=en}}|width=100%|year=2013}}
@@ Line 19: / Line 21: @@
 Note that this approach does not take the likelihood of the threat agent into account. Nor does it account for any of the various technical details associated with your particular application. Any of these factors could significantly affect the overall likelihood of an attacker finding and exploiting a particular vulnerability. This rating also does not take into account the actual impact on your business. Your organization will have to decide how much security risk from applications the organization is willing to accept given your culture, industry, and regulatory environment. The purpose of the OWASP Top 10 is not to do this risk analysis for you.
-{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate|year=2013}}
+{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate|year=2013|language=en}}
-{{Top_10:SummaryTableTemplate|exploitability=2|prevalence=0|detectability=1|impact=2|year=2013}}
+{{Top_10:SummaryTableTemplate|exploitability=2|prevalence=0|detectability=1|impact=2|year=2013|language=en}}
-{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderEndTemplate|year=2013}}
+{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderEndTemplate|year=2013|language=en}}
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; font-size: 200%; font-weight: bold; border: 3px solid #444444;">2</td>
@@ Line 48: / Line 50: @@
      |type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}
      |usenext=2013NextLink
-     |next=Details About Risk Factors
+     |next={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=detailsAboutRiskFactors|language=en}}
      |useprev=2013PrevLink
-     |prev=What's Next for Organizations
+     |prev={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=whatsNextforOrganizations|language=en}}
 }}

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
-Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 |2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.
+Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007 |2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10 OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010 OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.Although the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007  2007] and earlier versions of the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top10  OWASP Top 10] focused on identifying the most common “vulnerabilities,” the OWASP Top 10 has always been organized around risks. This has caused some understandable confusion on the part of people searching for an airtight weakness taxonomy. The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010  OWASP Top 10 for 2010] clarified the risk-focus in the Top 10 by being very explicit about how threat agents, attack vectors, weaknesses, technical impacts, and business impacts combine to produce risks. This version of the OWASP Top 10 follows the same methodology.
-The Risk Rating methodology for the Top 10 is based on the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology OWASP Risk Rating Methodology]. For each Top 10 item, we estimated the typical risk that each weakness introduces to a typical web application by looking at common likelihood factors and impact factors for each common weakness. We then rank ordered the Top 10 according to those weaknesses that typically introduce the most significant risk to an application.
+The Risk Rating methodology for the Top 10 is based on the [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology  OWASP Risk Rating Methodology]. For each Top 10 item, we estimated the typical risk that each weakness introduces to a typical web application by looking at common likelihood factors and impact factors for each common weakness. We then rank ordered the Top 10 according to those weaknesses that typically introduce the most significant risk to an application.
-The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology |OWASP Risk Rating Methodology] defines numerous factors to help calculate the risk of an identified vulnerability. However, the Top 10 must talk about generalities, rather than specific vulnerabilities in real applications. Consequently, we can never be as precise as a system owner can when calculating risk for their application(s). We don’t know how important your applications and data are, what your threat agents are, nor how your system has been built and is being operated.
+The [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology  OWASP Risk Rating Methodology] defines numerous factors to help calculate the risk of an identified vulnerability. However, the Top 10 must talk about generalities, rather than specific vulnerabilities in real applications. Consequently, we can never be as precise as system owners can be when calculating risks for their application(s). You are best equipped to judge the importance of your applications and data, what your threat agents are, and how your system has been built and is being operated.
-Our methodology includes 3 likelihood factors for each weakness (prevalence, detectability, and ease of exploit) and one impact factor (technical impact). The prevalence of a weakness is a factor that you typically don’t have to calculate. For prevalence data, we have been supplied prevalence statistics from a number of different organizations and we have averaged their data together to come up with a Top 10 likelihood of existence list by prevalence. This data was then combined with the other two likelihood factors (detectability and ease of exploit) to calculate a likelihood rating for each weakness. This was then multiplied by our estimated average technical impact for each item to come up with an overall risk ranking for each item in the Top 10.
+Our methodology includes three likelihood factors for each weakness (prevalence, detectability, and ease of exploit) and one impact factor (technical impact). The prevalence of a weakness is a factor that you typically don’t have to calculate. For prevalence data, we have been supplied prevalence statistics from a number of different organizations (as referenced in the Acknowledgements section on page 3) and we have averaged their data together to come up with a Top 10 likelihood of existence list by prevalence. This data was then combined with the other two likelihood factors (detectability and ease of exploit) to calculate a likelihood rating for each weakness. This was then multiplied by our estimated average technical impact for each item to come up with an overall risk ranking for each item in the Top 10.
-Note that this approach does not take the likelihood of the threat agent into account. Nor does it account for any of the various technical details associated with your particular application. Any of these factors could significantly affect the overall likelihood of an attacker finding and exploiting a particular vulnerability. This rating also does not take into account the actual impact on your business. <u>Your organization</u> will have to decide how much security risk from applications <u>the organization</u> is willing to accept. The purpose of the OWASP Top 10 is not to do this risk analysis for you.
+Note that this approach does not take the likelihood of the threat agent into account. Nor does it account for any of the various technical details associated with your particular application. Any of these factors could significantly affect the overall likelihood of an attacker finding and exploiting a particular vulnerability. This rating also does not take into account the actual impact on your business. Your organization will have to decide how much security risk from applications the organization is willing to accept given your culture, industry, and regulatory environment. The purpose of the OWASP Top 10 is not to do this risk analysis for you.
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate|year=2013}}

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate|year=2013}}
-{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableValue-2-Template|Exploitability|AVERAGE|year=2013}}
+{{Top_10:SummaryTableTemplate|exploitability=2|prevalence=0|detectability=1|impact=2|year=2013}}
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderEndTemplate|year=2013}}
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; font-size: 200%; font-weight: bold; border: 3px solid #444444;">2</td>
 <td style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; font-size: 200%; font-weight: bold; border: 3px solid #444444;">0</td>
 <td style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; font-size: 200%; font-weight: bold; border: 3px solid #444444;">1</td>
 <td style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; font-size: 200%; font-weight: bold; border: 3px solid #444444;">2</td>
-<td style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; font-size: 200%; font-weight: bold; border: 3px solid #444444;">&nbsp;</td>
+<td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
 <tr>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td colspan="3"  style="border: #4d953d 1px solid; background-color: #D9D9D9; text-align: center; padding: 4px;">
-<span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%; color: red;">Likelihood Rating: 1</span>
+<span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%; color: red;">Likelihood Rating: 1</span><br/>
-<br/>
+&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Average of Exploitability, Prevalence and Detectability)</td>
-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Average of Exploitability, Prevalence and Detectability)
+<td style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; font-size: 200%; font-weight: bold; solid #444444;">*&nbsp;2&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
-</td>
+<td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
 <tr>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td colspan="3"  style="border: #4d953d 1px solid; background-color: #D9D9D9; text-align: center; padding: 4px;">
-<span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%; color: red;">Risk Ranking: 2</span>
+<span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%; color: red;">Risk Ranking: 2</span><br/>
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Likelihood * Impact)
-</td>
+<td>&nbsp;</td>
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableEndTemplate|year=2013}}
 <br/>

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableEndTemplate|year=2013}}
+<br/>
+{{Top_10:SubsectionTableEndTemplate}}
 {{Top_10_2013:BottomTemplate
      |type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 14 April 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:
	}}		}}

−	{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate\|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}\|title=~~It's About Risks, Not Weaknesses~~	+	{{Top_10:SubsectionTableBeginTemplate\|type=main}} {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate\|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}\|subsection=freetext\|position=firstWhole\|title={{Top_10:LanguageFile\|text=itsAboutRisksNotWeaknesses}}\|width=100%\|year=2013}}
−	\|~~number~~=~~whole~~\|width=100%\|year=2013}}

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 </tr><tr>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
-<td colspan="3">'''Step 1:''' Likelihood equals the average of Exploitability, Prevalence and Detectability: ((2 + 0 + 1) / 3)
+<td colspan="3">
-<br/>
+'''Likelihood Rating''': <span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%; color: red;">1</span> (Average of Exploitability, Prevalence and Detectability)
 </td>
 </tr>