Difference between revisions of "ESAPI Assurance"

Revision as of 17:50, 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)

• "Software Facts Label"

 http://swaconsortium.org/projects/softwareFacts/softwareFacts.html

• 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

• links to DHS web sites and documents

• "Arguing Security - Creating Security Assurance Cases"

https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/assurance/643-BSI.html

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?