Difference between revisions of "Summit 2011 Working Sessions/Session058"

Revision as of 23:11, 27 January 2011

Counting and scoring application security defects
Please see/use the 'discussion' page for more details about this Working Session
Working Sessions Operational Rules - Please see here the general frame of rules.

WORKING SESSION IDENTIFICATION
Short Work Session Description	One of the biggest challenges of running an application security program is assembling the vulnerability findings from disparate tools, services, and consultants in a meaningful fashion. There are numerous standards for classifying vulnerabilities but little agreement on severity, exploitability, and/or business impact. One consultant may subjectively rate a vulnerability as critical while another will call it moderate. Some tools will attempt to gauge exploitability levels (which can be a black art in and of itself), others won't. Tools use everything from CWE to the OWASP Top Ten to the WASC TC to CAPEC. Security consultants often disregard vulnerability classification taxonomies in favor of their own "proprietary" systems. Sophisticated organizations may create their own internal system for normalizing output, but others can't afford to undertake such an effort. Until tool vendors and service providers can standardize on one methodology -- or maybe a couple -- for counting and scoring application defects, they are doing their customers a disservice.
Related Projects (if any)
Email Contacts & Roles	Chair Chris Eng @ Chris Wysopal @	Operational Manager	Mailing list Subscription Page

WORKING SESSION SPECIFICS
Objectives	Discuss existing methods for counting and scoring defects, by vendors and practitioners willing to share their methodologies. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of a standardized approach. Discuss the CWSS 0.1 draft and how it might be incorporated into a standard.
Venue/Date&Time/Model	Venue/Room OWASP Global Summit Portugal 2011	Date & Time	Discussion Model participants and attendees

WORKING SESSION OPERATIONAL RESOURCES
Projector, whiteboards, markers, Internet connectivity, power

WORKING SESSION ADDITIONAL DETAILS

WORKING SESSION OUTCOMES / DELIVERABLES
Proposed by Working Group	Approved by OWASP Board
White paper sketching out a standard for rating risks that accomodates individual minor defects all the way through architectural flaws (that may represent many individual defects)	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.
	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.
	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.
	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.
	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.
	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.
	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.
	After the Board Meeting - fill in here.

(Add you name by clicking "edit" on the tab on the upper left side of this page)

WORKING SESSION PARTICIPANTS
Name	Company	Notes & reason for participating, issues to be discussed/addressed
Jason Taylor @
Justin Clarke @	Gotham Digital Science
Sherif Koussa @	Software Secured
Vishal Garg @	AppSecure Labs Ltd

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 | summit_session_attendee_notes,_reason_for_participating_and_issues_to_be discussed3=
-| summit_session_attendee_name4 =
+| summit_session_attendee_name4 = Vishal Garg
-| summit_session_attendee_email4 =
+| summit_session_attendee_email4 = [email protected]
-| summit_session_attendee_company4=
+| summit_session_attendee_company4= AppSecure Labs Ltd
 | summit_session_attendee_notes,_reason_for_participating_and_issues_to_be discussed4=
 | summit_session_attendee_name5 =