This site is the archived OWASP Foundation Wiki and is no longer accepting Account Requests.
To view the new OWASP Foundation website, please visit https://owasp.org

Difference between revisions of "OWASP Mobile Security Project"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(About this list)
(Undo revision 224396 by Milan Singh Thakur (talk))
Line 134: Line 134:
  
 
Feel free to visit [https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/forum/#!forum/owasp-mobile-top-10-risks the mailing list] as well!
 
Feel free to visit [https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/forum/#!forum/owasp-mobile-top-10-risks the mailing list] as well!
 
=== [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%;"
 
| 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}}
 
  
 
== Top 10 Mobile Risks - Final List 2014 ==
 
== Top 10 Mobile Risks - Final List 2014 ==

Revision as of 11:00, 21 December 2016

Lab big.jpg

OWASP Mobile Security Project

OWASP Mobile Logo Milan.PNG

**New** Mobile Top Ten 2016 - Candidate Release

Click here to goto Mobile Security Page Archive

The OWASP Mobile Security Project is a centralized resource intended to give developers and security teams the resources they need to build and maintain secure mobile applications. Through the project, our goal is to classify mobile security risks and provide developmental controls to reduce their impact or likelihood of exploitation.

Our primary focus is at the application layer. While we take into consideration the underlying mobile platform and carrier inherent risks when threat modeling and building controls, we are targeting the areas that the average developer can make a difference. Additionally, we focus not only on the mobile applications deployed to end user devices, but also on the broader server-side infrastructure which the mobile apps communicate with. We focus heavily on the integration between the mobile application, remote authentication services, and cloud platform-specific features.

This project is still a work in progress. We are small group doing this work and could use more help! If you are interested, please contact one of the project leads or feel free to visit the mailing list as well!

Email List

Asvs-bulb.jpg Project Email List

Project Leaders

Jonathan Carter @
Milan Singh Thakur @

Co-Leaders

Bernhard Mueller @
Sven Schleier @

Former Leaders

Mike Zusman @
Tony DeLaGrange @
Sarath Geethakumar @
Tom Eston @
Don Williams
Jason Haddix @

Top Contributors

Zach Lanier @
Ludovic Petit @
Swapnil Deshmukh @
Beau Woods @
David Martin Aaron @
Luca De Fulgentis @
Andrew Pannell @
Stephanie V @