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 "Category:OWASP Project Assessment"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Assessment Scale for OWASP DOCUMENTATION Projects)
Line 80: Line 80:
 
| WORK IN PROGRESS - WORK IN PROGRESS
 
| WORK IN PROGRESS - WORK IN PROGRESS
 
|
 
|
−
* '''Requirement''': 2 Reviewers + 1 OWASP Board Member
+
* '''Requirement''': 2 Reviewers + 1 OWASP Board Member.
 
** Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest two Project Reviewers.  One of them should be an OWASP Project Leader.
 
** Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest two Project Reviewers.  One of them should be an OWASP Project Leader.
 
** Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest the Project Reviewers, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint them. The same will happen whenever the reviewers suggested do not have the required approval.
 
** Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest the Project Reviewers, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint them. The same will happen whenever the reviewers suggested do not have the required approval.
Line 102: Line 102:
 
* Mailing list for project created  
 
* Mailing list for project created  
 
|
 
|
−
* '''Requirement''': 1 Reviewer
+
* '''Requirement''': 1 Reviewer.
 
** Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest a Project Reviewer. This Project Reviewer has to be confirmed by majority vote of the OWASP Board.  
 
** Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest a Project Reviewer. This Project Reviewer has to be confirmed by majority vote of the OWASP Board.  
 
** Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest a Project Reviewer, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint one. The same will happen whenever the reviewer suggested does not have the required approval.
 
** Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest a Project Reviewer, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint one. The same will happen whenever the reviewer suggested does not have the required approval.

Revision as of 20:32, 22 February 2008

(Work in progress)

From OWASP Project


The following defines the quality levels for OWASP TOOLS and DOCUMENTATION (Projects). Rating projects against these criteria aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying projects in need of further work.

Assessment Scale for OWASP TOOLS Projects

Class Criteria Formal Process Example
Release Quality OWASP Tools All Beta Quality Requirements plus:
  • Be reasonably easy to use
  • Include online documention built into tool (based on required user documentation)
  • Include build scripts that facilitate building the application from source (Goal: One-click build)
  • Java projects should be run through Fortify Software's open source review (if appropriate) and FindBugs.
    • WebGoat would not be appropriate for example since it would light up like a Christmas tree :-)
  • C/C++ apps (if we have any) should consider being run through Coverity's open source review. Coverity also accepts submissions for open source Java applications.
  • When approved to be Release Quality: Update the link to it on: the OWASP Project page and update its project quality tag on its project page to be Release Quality.

Recommendations:

  • Publicly accessible bug tracking system, ideally at the same place as the source code repository (e.g., at Google code, or Sourceforge)
  • Conference style Powerpoint presentation that describes the use and status of the tool. (This could be used by others to discuss the tool at OWASP Chapter meetings, serve as easy to review offline documentation, etc.)
  • UAT pass on functionality of the tool
  • Developer documents any limitations
  • Requirement: 2 Reviewers + 1 OWASP Board Member.
    • Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest two Project Reviewers. One of them should be an OWASP Project Leader.
    • Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest the Project Reviewers, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint them. The same will happen whenever the reviewers suggested do not have the required approval.
 OWASP WebGoat Project
Beta Quality OWASP Tools All Alpha Quality Requirements plus:
  • Have an easy to use installer (Goal: Fully automated installer) (or stand alone executable version)
  • Include user documentation in Project's OWASP Wiki page(s)
  • Add a common About Box or help menu
    • (which lists name of tool, author, e-mail address of author, current version number and/or release date)
  • Include documentation on how to build it from code, starting with getting it directly from the code repository. (Ideally, this would include easy to use build scripts, which is required for Release Quality)
  • When approved to be Beta Quality: Update the link to it on: the OWASP Project page and update its project quality tag on its project page to be Beta.
  • Requirement: 2 Reviewers.
    • Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest two Project Reviewers. One of them should be an OWASP Project Leader.
    • Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest the Project Reviewers, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint them. The same will happen whenever the reviewers suggested do not have the required approval.
 OWASP AntiSamy Project
Alpha Quality OWASP Tools
  • Agree to OWASP's open source license
  • Create a project page at OWASP that:
    • describes the tool, the project leader,contact info, and includes a download link for the code and the executable version.
    • includes the Alpha Quality Tool project tag. (Which we still need to define).
    • has a link to the project page from the OWASP Project page.
  • Have its code in Googlecode, or Sourceforge
  • Mailing list for project created
  • Solves a core application security need
  • Requirement: 1 Reviewer.
    • Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest a Project Reviewer. This Project Reviewer has to be confirmed by majority vote of the OWASP Board.
    • Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest a Project Reviewer, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint one. The same will happen whenever the reviewer suggested does not have the required approval.
 OWASP CSRFTester Project

Assessment Scale for OWASP DOCUMENTATION Projects

Class Criteria Formal Process Example
Release Quality OWASP Documentation WORK IN PROGRESS - WORK IN PROGRESS
  • Requirement: 2 Reviewers + 1 OWASP Board Member.
    • Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest two Project Reviewers. One of them should be an OWASP Project Leader.
    • Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest the Project Reviewers, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint them. The same will happen whenever the reviewers suggested do not have the required approval.
 OWASP AppSec FAQ Project
Beta Quality OWASP Documentation WORK IN PROGRESS - WORK IN PROGRESS
  • Requirement: 2 Reviewers.
    • Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest two Project Reviewers. One of them should be an OWASP Project Leader.
    • Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest the Project Reviewers, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint them. The same will happen whenever the reviewers suggested do not have the required approval.
 OWASP CLASP Project
Alpha Quality OWASP Documentation
  • Agree to OWASP's open source license
  • Create a project page at OWASP that describes:
    • WORK IN PROGRESS
  • Mailing list for project created
  • Requirement: 1 Reviewer.
    • Whenever possible the author’s project should suggest a Project Reviewer. This Project Reviewer has to be confirmed by majority vote of the OWASP Board.
    • Whenever the author’s project fails to suggest a Project Reviewer, the OWASP Board, by majority vote, will appoint one. The same will happen whenever the reviewer suggested does not have the required approval.
 OWASP AJAX Security Project

FAQ

1. What is the purpose of the project ratings? 
The rating system allows OWASP to monitor the quality of Projects in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these projects. It is also utilized to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
2. How do I add a project (tool or documentation) to the OWASP Projects? 
To propose a new project, please send an email to OWASP.
3. How does the assessment scale work? 
Each category has a set of requirements/criteria to be met. Beta Quality implies that all of its requirements, as well as the Alpha Quality requirement have been met. Release Quality implies that all of the requirements, including Alpha and Beta, have been met.
4. Who can assess projects? 
The OWASP Project Manager can assign you a reviewer.
5. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? 
Unfortunately, due to the volume of projects that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the project; they will be happy to provide you with their rationale.
6. What if I don't agree with a rating? 
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternatively, you can ask any member of the project to rate the project again.
7. Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
8. What if I have a question not listed here? 
If your question concerns the project assessment process specifically, please contact OWASP or its Project Manager directly.

Requests for assessment

If you have made significant changes to a project and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below or e-mail OWASP Project Manager.

  1. Here
  2. Or here
  3. Add new requests above this line
Retrieved from "https://wiki.owasp.org/index.php?title=Category:OWASP_Project_Assessment&oldid=25872"