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 "ESAPI Assurance"
From OWASP
(→Building an Assurance Case for ESAPI) |
(→Building an Assurance Case for ESAPI) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Building an Assurance Case for ESAPI == | == Building an Assurance Case for ESAPI == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/assurance/643-BSI.html Arguing Security - Creating Security Assurance Cases] | ||
* summary: make Claims, provide supporting Evidence, and make Arguments for how the evidence supports the claims | * summary: make Claims, provide supporting Evidence, and make Arguments for how the evidence supports the claims | ||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
* Highest level claim is "The system is Acceptably Secure" but how to break this down into sub-claims that map to the provided evidence? e.g. absence of specific vulns (as investigated by manual testing or tool scans) | * Highest level claim is "The system is Acceptably Secure" but how to break this down into sub-claims that map to the provided evidence? e.g. absence of specific vulns (as investigated by manual testing or tool scans) | ||
| − | * [http://swaconsortium.org/projects/softwareFacts/softwareFacts.html Software Facts Label] | + | * claims could be summarized using a [http://swaconsortium.org/projects/softwareFacts/softwareFacts.html Software Facts Label] |
* each language (Java, ASP, etc.) may need separate claims | * each language (Java, ASP, etc.) may need separate claims | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
* publish scanning tool results | * publish scanning tool results | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Coding Practices == | == Coding Practices == | ||
Revision as of 18:48, 11 December 2008
Building an Assurance Case for ESAPI
- summary: make Claims, provide supporting Evidence, and make Arguments for how the evidence supports the claims
- Highest level claim is "The system is Acceptably Secure" but how to break this down into sub-claims that map to the provided evidence? e.g. absence of specific vulns (as investigated by manual testing or tool scans)
- claims could be summarized using a Software Facts Label
- each language (Java, ASP, etc.) may need separate claims
- list the third-party software
- discuss coding practices that were followed, skill levels of developers, amount of independent review
- publish scanning tool results
Coding Practices
- was OWASP Top Ten followed?
- how was performance and security balanced?
- what is the level of training of the developers? amount of experience in web development?
- were tools part of the whole process or run at the end?
- how was code repository prevented from unauthorized alterations?
- practices for code check-in and independent review - how is introduction of Trojans avoided?
- what threat level is being accounted for (e.g. will this only work against script kiddies)? was threat modeling used?
