Difference between revisions of "OWASP Testing Guide v2 Review Panel"

Revision as of 22:26, 17 November 2006

[Table of Contents]

Update: 17th November, 23.00 (GMT+1)

**********************
Reviewing planning
**********************

The reviewers are: Mark Roxberry, Alberto Revelli, Daniel Cuthbert, Antonio Parata, Matteo G.P. Flora, Matteo Meucci, Eoin Keary, Stefano Di Paola, James Kist, Vicente Aguilera, Mauro Bregolin, Syed Mohamed A

We can begin the 1st reviewing phase by review all 63 articles (nearly 13 articles per person). The deadline is 15th November at 20.00 (GMT+1) because we have 15th November as 1st deadline for the Autumn of Code Project.

*********************************************
We are waiting for the following articles
*********************************************

4.2.2 Spidering and googling (40%, Tom Brennan, Tom Ryan)
4.2.4.2 DB Listener Testing TD (Maybe Eoin?)
4.5.5 HTTP Exploit (0%, Arian J.Evans)
4.6.2.2 Oracle testing TD
4.6.4 ORM Injection (0%, Mark Roxberry)
5. Writing Reports: value the real risk
5.1 How to value the real risk (50%, Daniel Cuthbert, Matteo Meucci, Sebastien Deleersnyder, Marco Morana)
5.2 How to write the report of the testing (0%, Daniel Cuthbert, Tom Brennan, Tom Ryan)

*********************************************************
Here is the complete list of articles to be reviewed:
********************************************************* _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Introduction --> reviewed by Eoin Keary

[OK]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• The OWASP Testing Framework -->...

1 of 1 article to be reviewed

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.1 Introduction and objectives -->.EK

[OK]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.2 Information Gathering (Reviewed by EK) --> Keary

9 of 10 articles reviewed ->

• Application Discovery:
  • Reviewed + updated(EK) (Maybe we should include HTTP methods for application descovery, such as HTTP HEAD command?)
    
  • (Bregolin) If you are referring to things such as "fingerprinting", it was hinted - and I personally agree on this - to create a new section on Web application fingerprinting. There's however a bit of overlap with Infrastructure configuration management testing
• Analysis of error codes:
  • Reviewed + updated(EK)
    
  • Besides the own error, it would be necessary to speak about the voluntary provocation of errors? (Vicente). Two examples:
    
    • Example 1: Type error. (original): ?id=276 (test): ?id=X
      
    • Example 2: Type conversion error. (original): ?id=276 (test): ?id=276 and 1 in (select top 1 name from sysobjects)
      
  • (Bregolin) Agree with the above. A testing methodology should be formalized, i.e. tester should verify if it is possible to cause information disclosure in error or diagnostic messages by tampering with user-alterable input using a set of techniques (such as type mismatch, overflow/underflow, excess input length, various forms of injection, ...)
• Infrastructure configuration management testing AoC:
  • Reviewed by EK. Not in typical guide structure -> (MM: I've changed the structure)
    
• SSL/TLS Testing AoC:
  • Reviewed + updated(EK). (Reviewed by MM: changed the structure)
    
• DB Listener Testing:
  • Incomplete
    
• Application configuration management testing:
  • Reviewed by EK. Not typical guide structure -> (MM: I've changed the structure)
  • This is generally a "white box" section. There are no examples of testing the configuration from a remote perspective. If this was the aim of the document, thats fine. - Need feedback on this one!!
  • Sample/known files and directories: might be good to refer to http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Old_file_testing_AoC ??
  • Logging: Timestamp is also important
• File extensions handling
  
  • contains the text: "...To review and expand..." - Is this complete??
  • Need a second opinion on this one!! :)
• Old file testing: Reviewed by EK

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.3 Business logic testing --> Meucci

1 of 1 article reviewed [OK]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.4 Authentication Testing --> Roxberry (articles have been edited)

0 of 7 articles to be reviewed [OK]

• • 4.4 Authentication Testing (95%) : Reviewed by MR Authentication Testing Index
  • 4.4.1 Default or guessable (dictionary) user account (80%) : Reviewed by MR Default or guessable user account review
  • 4.4.2 Brute Force (95%) : Reviewed by MR Brute Force review
  • 4.4.3 Bypassing authentication schema (95%) : Reviewed by MR Bypass Authentication review
  • 4.4.4 Directory traversal/file include (100%) : Reviewed by MR Directory Traversal Testing review
  • 4.4.5 Vulnerable remember password and pwd reset (90%) Reviewed by MR Vulnerable Reset Password review
  • 4.4.6 Logout and Browser Cache Management Testing (100%) Reviewed by MR Logout and Browser Cache Management Testing review

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.5 Session Management Testing --> Syed Mohamed A

5 of 6 articles to be reviewed

• • 4.5 Session Management Testing (95%)
  • 4.5.1 Analysis of the Session Management Schema (90%)
  • 4.5.2 Cookie and Session token Manipulation (100%)
  • 4.5.3 Exposed session variables (90%)
  • 4.5.4 Session Riding (XSRF) (80%)
  • 4.5.5 HTTP Exploit (0%)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.6 Data Validation Testing --> Meucci

18 articles reviewed (3 are at 0%) [OK]

• • 4.6 Data Validation Testing : Reviewed by EK
    • (Bregolin) begin
    • [Note: Haven't committed the following since that would imply a substantial rewrite, let's see what others think]
    • I think that this section should first categorize what constitutes input for a web application. (Which allows to identify what must be tested, and how). i.e., obviously input fields, hidden fields, HTTP headers (such as Referer, cookies), HTTP methods etc.
    • There are other kinds of injection, such as CRLF injection.
    • SQL Injection affects SQL statements, and not queries (though usually that's the case)
    • It should be stressed that the main reason to perform data validation is to prevent application faults, i.e. unexpected behavior, that is violation of (security) requirements. Regardless of the categories of vulnerabilities listed, an application should (actually must!) verify all input against: type, length, range or domain validity. "Bad" input may not cause any of the listed vulnerabilities yet cause the application to misbehave, if it is not checked (possibly causing DoS or violating data integrity or confidentiality).
    • (Bregolin) end
  • 4.6.1 Cross site scripting: Reviewed by EK (Reformatted it slightly with wiki tags). Not completed
  • 4.6.1.1 HTTP Methods and XST Reviewed by MM. Reviewed by AP.
  • 4.6.2 SQL Injection (90%) Reviewed by MM. Reviewed by EK.
    • Not sure about "inferential" injection definition in "Description of Issue"
    • Added some reference to Oracle. Corrected English.
  • 4.6.2.1 Stored procedure injection (40%) TD (not enough informations)
  • 4.6.2.2 Oracle testing (0%) TD (not enough informations)
  • 4.6.2.3 MySQL testing (100%) Reviewed by MM
  • 4.6.2.4 SQL Server testing (95%) Reviewed by MM. tools?
  • 4.6.3 LDAP Injection (90%) Reviewed by MM added wp and tools
  • 4.6.4 ORM Injection (0%) TD (not enough informations)
  • 4.6.5 XML Injection (90%) Reviwed and updated by MM. WP and tools?
  • 4.6.6 SSI Injection (95%) Reviewed by MM
  • 4.6.7 XPath Injection (80%) Reviewed by MM. Gray box section is to complete?
  • 4.6.8 IMAP/SMTP Injection (95%)Reviewed by MM
  • 4.6.9 Code Injection (70%) Reviewed by MM. Not completed
  • 4.6.10 OS Commanding (70%) Reviewed by MM. Not completed
  • 4.6.11 Buffer overflow Testing (100%) Reviewed by MM. Note: these tests are not usual web app tests
    • (Bregolin) The point is that these are not black box tests, so where they are now they are misplaced
  • 4.6.11.1 Heap overflow (100%) Reviewed by MM
  • 4.6.11.2 Stack overflow (100%)Reviewed by MM
  • 4.6.11.3 Format string (100%)Reviewed by MM
  • 4.6.12 Incubated vulnerability testing (95%) Reviewed by MM, whitepapers?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.7 Denial of Service Testing--> Revelli

8 of 8 articles Reviewed [OK] - To do the References

• • 4.7 Denial of Service Testing 100% Reviewed by Revelli
  • 4.7.1 Locking Customer Accounts 100% Reviewd by Revelli
  • 4.7.2 Buffer Overflows 100% Reviewd by Revelli
  • 4.7.3 User Specified Object Allocation 100% Reviewd by Revelli
  • 4.7.4 User Input as a Loop Counter 100% Reviewd by Revelli
  • 4.7.5 Writing User Provided Data to Disk 100% Reviewd by Revelli
  • 4.7.6 Failure to Release Resources 100% Reviewd by Revelli
  • 4.7.7 Storing too Much Data in Session 100% Reviewd by Revelli

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.8 Web Services Testing --> Matteo Meucci

6 of 6 articles reviewed [OK]

• • 4.8 Web Services Testing (100%) Reviewed by Meucci
  • 4.8.1 XML Structural Testing (100%) Reviewed by Meucci
  • 4.8.2 XML content-level Testing (90%) Reviewed by Meucci
  • 4.8.3 HTTP GET parameters/REST Testing (100%) Reviewed by Meucci
  • 4.8.4 Naughty SOAP attachments (95%) Reviewed by Meucci
  • 4.8.5 Replay Testing (95%) Reviewed by Meucci. Need to add code examples, images and proof of impersonation

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 4.9 AJAX Testing --> Roxberry

3 of 3 articles to be reviewed

• • 4.9 AJAX Testing (70%)
  • 4.9.1 Vulnerabilities (60%)
  • 4.9.2 How to test (60%)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 5. Writing Reports: value the real risk

We have to write about it. I consider it not yet finished. O of 3 articles to be reviewed.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Appendix A: Testing Tools -->...

1 article of 1: need to update it searching all the guide for paragraps: tools

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Appendix B: Suggested Reading -->...

1 article of 1: need to update it searching all the guide for paragraps: tools

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Appendix C: Fuzz Vectors --> Stefano Di Paola

1 article of 1: Need to be updated

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*************************
Reviewers Rules
*************************

1) Check the english language
2) Check the template: the articles on chapter 4 should have the following:

• Template (http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Template_Paragraph_Testing_AoC)

In some articles we don't need to talk about Gray Box Testing or other, so we can eliminate it.

3) Check the reference style. (I'd like to have all the referenced URLs visible because I have to produce also a pdf document of the Guide). I agree with Stefano, we have to use a reference like that:

== References ==

'''Whitepapers'''<br>

* [1] Author1, Author2: "Title" - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2254.txt<br>

* [2]...<br>

'''Tools'''<br>

* Francois Larouche: "Multiple DBMS Sql Injection tool" - http://www.sqlpowerinjector.com/index.htm <br>

4) Check the reference with the other articles of the guide or with the other OWASP Project.

5) Other?