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 "Talk:Benchmark"
m |
(→Request headers in XSS attacks: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The "worse than guessing" interpretation seems to come from the following scenario. We have ''n'' real and ''m'' fake vulnerabilities. For each of these vulnerabilities let the tool (or a monkey) decide if it is real. I guess this scenario ignores that the tool does not get the list of these vulnerabilities as its input. --[[User:Eelgheez|Eelgheez]] ([[User talk:Eelgheez|talk]]) 20:24, 13 July 2016 (CDT) | The "worse than guessing" interpretation seems to come from the following scenario. We have ''n'' real and ''m'' fake vulnerabilities. For each of these vulnerabilities let the tool (or a monkey) decide if it is real. I guess this scenario ignores that the tool does not get the list of these vulnerabilities as its input. --[[User:Eelgheez|Eelgheez]] ([[User talk:Eelgheez|talk]]) 20:24, 13 July 2016 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Request headers in XSS attacks == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Test Case Details tab says that only Referer headers can act as tainted input in XSS scenario. But (a) I doubt it is possible to craft a malicious path hosting the link to a site with the vulnerability and (b) in creating a stored XSS off a page on the attacker site with a crafted javascript, sending malicious values in any header but Referer appears possible (Same Origin Policy will prevent from reading the response but not from sending the request). --[[User:Eelgheez|Eelgheez]] ([[User talk:Eelgheez|talk]]) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:34, 26 July 2016
The meaning of the diagonal
I don't think it's fair to call the diagonal line in the FPR/TPR chart a "random guess" line. The FPR == TPR equation translates to FP/(FP+TN) == TP/(TP+FN), meaning FP*FN == TN*TP, or FP/TP == TN/FN. The FPR > TPR area below the line does not put the tool into a "worse than guessing" shame list. The last equation suggests a different interpretation of that area, "the noise rate in reporting suspects exceeds the silence rate about non-issues".
The "worse than guessing" interpretation seems to come from the following scenario. We have n real and m fake vulnerabilities. For each of these vulnerabilities let the tool (or a monkey) decide if it is real. I guess this scenario ignores that the tool does not get the list of these vulnerabilities as its input. --Eelgheez (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2016 (CDT)
Request headers in XSS attacks
The Test Case Details tab says that only Referer headers can act as tainted input in XSS scenario. But (a) I doubt it is possible to craft a malicious path hosting the link to a site with the vulnerability and (b) in creating a stored XSS off a page on the attacker site with a crafted javascript, sending malicious values in any header but Referer appears possible (Same Origin Policy will prevent from reading the response but not from sending the request). --Eelgheez (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (CDT)
