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 "OWASP Education Presentation"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(*Nuyenatoshiyoshiko Tachikawa Protocol Software)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
!width="40%" |Comment
 
!width="40%" |Comment
 
!width="15%" |Level
 
!width="15%" |Level
!width="15%" |Date (yyyy-mm-dd)
+
!width="15%" |Date (2015-07-04)
 
|-valign="top"
 
|-valign="top"
 
|[https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Education/Free_Training Free Developer Training]|| Developer AppSec Course by [[Eoin Keary]] and [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Jmanico Jim Manico] || Intermediate || 2014-04-04
 
|[https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Education/Free_Training Free Developer Training]|| Developer AppSec Course by [[Eoin Keary]] and [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Jmanico Jim Manico] || Intermediate || 2014-04-04
Line 42: Line 42:
 
|[[:Image:Education Module Good WebAppSec Resources.ppt|Good WebAppSec Resources]]|| This module points you to some good web application security resources when developping or deploying web applications as part of the [[:Category:OWASP Education Project|Education Project]] || Novice || 2007-11-01
 
|[[:Image:Education Module Good WebAppSec Resources.ppt|Good WebAppSec Resources]]|| This module points you to some good web application security resources when developping or deploying web applications as part of the [[:Category:OWASP Education Project|Education Project]] || Novice || 2007-11-01
 
|-valign="top"
 
|-valign="top"
|Example (Briechenstein Software Studio) || OWASP Education Presentation|| Novice/Intermediate/Expert || 2012-10-05
+
|[[ (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio) || OWASP Education Presentation|| Intermediate || 2015-07-04
 
|}
 
|}
 
+
,
 
<br>
 
<br>
  
Line 151: Line 151:
 
|[https://owasp.org/images/0/0d/OWASPAppSec2006Seattle_Why_AJAX_Applications_More_Likely_Insecure.ppt Why AJAX Applications Are Far More Likely To Be Insecure (And What To Do About It) (Dave Wichers)] || Dave's talk on AJAX given at the Seattle 2006 AppSec conference || Intermediate || 2006-10-01
 
|[https://owasp.org/images/0/0d/OWASPAppSec2006Seattle_Why_AJAX_Applications_More_Likely_Insecure.ppt Why AJAX Applications Are Far More Likely To Be Insecure (And What To Do About It) (Dave Wichers)] || Dave's talk on AJAX given at the Seattle 2006 AppSec conference || Intermediate || 2006-10-01
 
|-valign="top"
 
|-valign="top"
|Example (Briechenstein Software Studio) || BSSOWSORP-OWASP || Novice/Intermediate/Expert || 2012-10-05
+
|[[ (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio) ||Security Analyst || Intermediate|| 2015-07-04
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 182: Line 182:
 
|[http://www.owasp.org/images/f/f6/Integration_into_the_SDLC.ppt Integration into the SDLC (Eoin Keary)] || A presentation about why and how to integrate the SDLC. || Novice || 2005-04-09
 
|[http://www.owasp.org/images/f/f6/Integration_into_the_SDLC.ppt Integration into the SDLC (Eoin Keary)] || A presentation about why and how to integrate the SDLC. || Novice || 2005-04-09
 
|-valign="top"
 
|-valign="top"
|Example (Briechenstein Software Studio) || Freelance Contractor|| Novice/Intermediate/Expert || 2012-10-05
+
|[[ (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio || Intermediate || 2015-07-04
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 295: Line 295:
 
|-valign="top"
 
|-valign="top"
  
|(Briechenstein Software Studio) || Open Web application Security Project|| Novice/Intermediate/Expert || 2012-10-05 || Chapter
+
|(https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio) || Open Web application Security Project|| Intermediate|| 2015-07-04 ||  
|}
+
 
 +
Chapter 4
 +
 
 +
Specification Language
 +
 
 +
This formal specification by language example presents cybersecurity studies (of over 10 projects) of how successful OWASP educational presentations test develop design and deliver cybersecurity software efficiently supporting formal methods as mathematically based techniquesthat are needed to assist  in the design and implementation of reliable cybersecurity software.
 +
 
 +
Specification by language example is a must read for anyone serious about delivering translated cybersecurity language software that matters It is the result of a research on how teams internationally specify test develop design and deliver the right cybersecurity software without defects in very short computational delivery cycles  With cybersecurity case studies and real examples this presentation helps you understand how successful teams implement mathematical cybersecurity by example denoting
 +
acceptable testing and behavior driven  development to bridge the communication gap between committees stakeholders and contributing teams build quality into cybersecurity from the start by testing developing designing and delivering supported languagfor syntax highlighting purposes It presents the collective knowledge of about 50 cybersecurity projects ranging from high traffic websites to virtual back office cybersecurity systems implemented by teams as diverse as small startups to groups spread across different continents working in a range of processes including Extreme programming Kanban Scrum and similar processes often bundled together under the names Lean and Agile This protocol is for testers software developers business analysts and project managers working on Syntax and Agile projects or teams moving to an Agile development method that want to improve quality  reduce correction of defective cybersecurity software and collaborate better with the OWASP committee.
 +
Smith
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
*Retrieved notes from Categories Specification languages and Formal specification
 +
For the last past decade computer systems have become increasingly more powerful as a result becoming more impactful to society  Established engineering disciplines use mathematical analysis as the foundation of creating and validating product design Formal language specifications are one im such a way for achievement in software engineering as reliability  once predicted Other methods such as testing are more commonly used to enhance code quality
 +
 
 +
Usability given as such a specification it is possible to use formal verification techniques to demonstrate that a system design is correct with respect to its specification This allows incorrect system designs to be revised before any major investments have been made into an actual implementation Another approach is to use provably correct refinement steps to transform a specification into a design which is ultimately transformed into an implementation that is correct by construction.
 +
 
 +
*It is important to note that a formal specification is not an implementation but rather it may be used to develop an implementation Formal specifications describe what a system should do not how the system should do it A good specification must have some of the following attributes: adequate internally consistent unambiguous complete satisfied constructability manageability and evolvability Usability Communicability Powerful and efficient analysis which is one of the main reasons there is interest in formal specifications that will provide an ability to perform proofs on cybersecurity software implementations These proofs may be used to validate a specification verify correctness of design, or to prove that a program satisfies a specification.
 +
 
 +
Limitations
 +
A design (or implementation) cannot ever be declared “correct” on its own. It can only ever be “corrected with respect to a given specification Whether the formal specification correctly describes the problem to be solved is a separate issue It is also a difficult issue to address since it ultimately concerns the problem constructing abstracted formal representations of an informal concrete problem domain and such an abstraction step is not amenable to formal proof. However, it is possible to validate a specification by proving “challenge” theorems concerning properties that the specification is expected to exhibit.o_O If correct Olloclip In these theorems reinforce the specifier's understanding of the specification and its relationship with the underlying problem domain If not the specification probably needs to be changed to better reflect the domain understanding of those involved with producing (and implementing) the specification.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Flexibility
 +
As far as flexibility goes a lot of software companies use agile methodologies that focus on flexibility Doing a formal specification of the whole system up front is often perceived as being the opposite of flexible However there is some research into the benefits of using formal specifications with "agile" development
 +
Complexity is a requirement that is a high level of mathematical expertise and the analytical skills to understand and apply them effectively
 +
I have a solution to develop resources and models that allow for these techniques to be implemented but hide underlying mathematics
 +
 
 +
 
 +
I hope to accomplish a good job of specifying user interfaces and user interaction that is Not cost-effective
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Formal specification techniques have existed in various domains and on various scales for quite some time Implementations of formal specifications will differ depending on what kind of system they are attempting to model how they are applied and at what point in the software life cycle they have been introduced These types of models can be categorized into the following specification paradigms:
 +
 
 +
 
 +
History-based specification
 +
 
 +
behavior based system histories
 +
assertions are interpreted over time
 +
State-based Specification
 +
behavior based on system states
 +
series of sequential steps (e.g. a financial transaction)
 +
languages such as Z, VDM or B rely on this paradigm+
 +
Transition-based specification
 +
behavior based on transitions from state-to-state of the system
 +
best used with a reactive system
 +
languages such as Statecharts PROMELA STeP-SPL RSML or SCR rely on this paradigm
 +
Functional specification
 +
specify a system as a structure of mathematical functions
 +
OBJ, ASL, PLUSS, LARCH, HOL or PVS rely on this paradigm
 +
Operational Specification
 +
early languages such as Paisley GIST Petri nets or process algebras rely on this paradigm
 +
In addition to the above paradigms there are ways to apply certain heuristics to help improve the creation of these specifications The protocol referenced here best discusses heuristics to use when designing a specification.Heuristics= a rule or method that helps you solve problems faster than you would if you did all the computing
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Resources:
 +
Algebraic specification= Providing a mathematical software engineering technique
 +
 
 +
 
 +
References:
 +
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Lamsweerde, A. V. (2000). "Formal specification". Proceedings of the conference on the future of Software engineering - ICSE '00. p. 147. doi:10.1145/336512.336546. ISBN
 +
^ a b c d Sommerville, Ian (2009). "Formal Specification" (PDF). Software Engineering. Retrieved
 +
^ a b c Nummenmaa, Timo; Tiensuu, Aleksi; Berki, Eleni; Mikkonen, Tommi; Kuittinen, Jussi; Kultima, Annakaisa (4 August 2011). "Supporting agile development by facilitating natural user interaction with executable formal specifications". ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 36 (4): 1–10. doi:10.1145/1988997.2003643. edit
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Best Wishes,
 +
Brenda Smith
 +
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
  
 +
[[Category:Specification languages]]
 
[[Category:OWASP Education Project]]
 
[[Category:OWASP Education Project]]
 
[[Category:OWASP Presentations]]
 
[[Category:OWASP Presentations]]
 
[[Category:Chapter Resources]]
 
[[Category:Chapter Resources]]

Revision as of 22:27, 5 July 2015

This page provide a commented overview of the OWASP presentations available.
Please use the last line of the tables as template.
Presentions can be tracked through:

Everybody is encouraged to link the presentations and add their findings on this page ! There are currently hundreds of presentations all over the OWASP web site. If you search google with “site:owasp.org filetype:ppt” there are 166 hits. “site:owasp.org filetype:pdf” returns 76. Feel free to “mine” them and add them to the overview.

OWASP Education Presentations

OWASP Education Presentations
Title Comment Level Date (2015-07-04)
Free Developer Training Developer AppSec Course by Eoin Keary and Jim Manico Intermediate 2014-04-04
OWASP Overview Winter 2009 Updated overview of OWASP Novice 2009-12-08
Programa de Educacion OWASP Una introduccion a OWASP para Universidades y Centros Educativos por Fabio Cerullo Novice 2009-03-20
OWASP Educational Programme An introduction to OWASP for Universities & Educational Institutions by Fabio Cerullo Novice 2009-03-20
OWASP Overview Summer 2009 Recent overview of OWASP by Jeff Williams Novice 2009-08-25
Why WebAppSec Matters This module explains why security should be considered when developping or deploying web applications as part of the Education Project Novice 2007-11-01
OWASP Intro 2008 Portuguese Este módulo é uma intrudução sobre o projeto OWASP. Novice 2008-07-06
OWASP Top 10 Introduction and Remedies This module explains the OWASP Top 10 web application vulnerabilities as part of the Education Project Novice 2007-11-01
Embed within SDLC This module explains the complete approach of Web Application Security when developping or deploying web applications as part of the Education Project Novice 2007-11-01
Good Secure Development Practices This module explains some good secure development practices when developping or deploying web applications as part of the Education Project Novice 2007-11-01
Testing for Vulnerabilities This module explains application security testing when developping or deploying web applications as part of the Education Project Novice 2007-11-01
Good WebAppSec Resources This module points you to some good web application security resources when developping or deploying web applications as part of the Education Project Novice 2007-11-01
[[ (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio) OWASP Education Presentation Intermediate 2015-07-04

,

OWASP Project Presentations

OWASP Project Presentations
Title Comment Level Date (yyyy-mm-dd)
OWASP Introduction OWASP Overview presentation covering OWASP, project parade and OWASP near you. Given by Seba during the Germany 2008 Conference Novice 2008-11-25
India08 Keynote - Part 1 OWASP Overview presentation. Part 1 of 2. Given by Dinis and Jason during the India08 Conference Novice 2008-08-16
India08 Keynote - Part 2 OWASP Overview presentation. Part 2 of 2. Given by Dinis and Jason during the India08 Conference Novice 2008-08-16
Tour of OWASP’s projects Given by Dinis and Jason during the India08 Conference Novice 2008-08-16
OWASP @ RISK08 (Norway) OWASP introduction at Norway RISK2008 conference by Seba Novice 2008-04-23
OWASP NY Keynote by Jeff also available in French OWASP Overview presentation with slide "OWASP by the numbers" and slide with the sorry state of Tools (at best 45%) which caused some controverse Novice 2007-06-12
The OWASP Testing Guide (Jeff Williams) Overview of the OWASP Testing Guide Novice 2007-01-23
The OWASP Testing Guide v2 EUSecWest07 (Matteo Meucci, Alberto Revelli) Presentation at EUSecWest07 Intermediate 2007-03-01
OWASP Project Overview High level overview of projects and how OWASP works Novice 2006-09-19
The OWASP Application Security Metrics Project (Bob Austin) Presentation on the Application Security Metrics project Novice 2006-10-17
OWASP CLASP Project (Pravir Chandra) OWASP CLASP project presentation given at the 2006 European AppSec conference Novice 2006-05-30
Sprajax (Dan Cornell) OWASP Sprajax presentation given at the 2006 Seattle AppSec conference Intermediate 2006-10-17
Example (Briechenstein Software Studio Software Architect Novice/Intermediate/Expert 2012-10-05


OWASP Conference Presentations

OWASP Conference Presentations
Title Comment Level Date (yyyy-mm-dd)
Mod Security Core Rule Set (Ofer Shezaf) Ofer Shezaf's presentation on the Core Ruleset for the latest version of ModSecurity presented at 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy, in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
OWASP Testing Guide v2.1 (Matteo Meucci) Matteo Meucci's presentation on the OWASP Testing Guide v2 at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
CLASP (Pravir Chandra) Pravir Chandra's presentation on the upcoming 2007 update to CLASP presented at 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
Advanced Web Hacking (PDP) PDPs presentation at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Expert 2007-05-16
XML Security Gateway Evaluation Criteria (Gunnar Peterson) Gunnar Peterson's presentation about the new XML Security Gateway Evaluation Criteria project at 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
Testing Flash Applications (Stephano Di Paolo) Stephano Di Paolo's presentation on how to test Flash applications presented at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Expert 2007-05-16
Overtaking Google Desktop (Yair Amit) Yair Amit's presentation on XSS Flaws in Google Desktop that can be exploited through google.com presented at 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Expert 2007-05-16
ACE Team Application Security from the Core (Simon Roses Femerling) Simon Roses Femerling's presentation on the Microsoft ACE team's application security process at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
Pantera (Simon Roses Femerling) Simon Roses Femerling's presentation on the new OWASP tool Pantera at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
Protecting Web applications from universal PDF XSS (Ivan Ristic) Ivan Ristic's Universal XSS PDF presentation at 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
Software Security (Rudolph Araujo) Rudolph Araujo's presentation on Application Security best practices at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan Italy, May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
WebGoat v5 (Dave Wichers) WebGoat v5 presentation by Dave Wichers at the 6th OWASP AppSec Conference in Milan, Italy, May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
WebScarab NG (Dave Wichers) Description of the new WebScarab-NG efforts presented by Dave Wichers at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan, Italy in May 2007. Intermediate 2007-05-16
SANS SPSA Initiative (Dave Wichers) Description of the SANS Secure Coding Exam Initiative presented by Dave Wichers at the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan Italy, May 2007. Novice 2007-05-16
OWASP Italy Activities (Raoul Chiesa) Raoul Chiesa's keynote for day 2 of the 6th OWASP AppSec conference on the state of application security in Italy including OWASP's activities in that country. Novice 2007-05-16
Security engineering in Vista (Alex Lucas) Alex Lucas' from Microsoft's keynote presentation for Day 1 of the 6th OWASP AppSec conference in Milan on the benefits of Microsoft's SDL to the security of Vista. Intermediate 2007-05-16
How the Security Development Lifecycle(SDL) Improved Windows Vista (Michael Howard) Michael Howard's talk on SDL from the OWASP Seattle AppSec Conference in 2006 Intermediate 2006-10-18
Bootstrapping the Application Assurance Process (Sebastien Deleersnyder) Presentation given during the European 2006 AppSec conference on the application assurance process Novice 2006-05-30
Inline Approach for Secure SOAP Requests and Early Validation (Mohammad Ashiqur Rahaman, Maartin Rits and Andreas Schaad SAP Research, Sophia Antipolis, France) Presentation given at the European 2006 AppSec conference about security and soap message structure issues Intermediate 2006-05-31
Web Application Firewalls:When Are They Useful? (Ivan Ristic) Presentation about Web Application Firewalls Novice 2006-05-31
HTTP Message Splitting, Smuggling and Other Animals (Amit Klein) A presentation about Message splitting other attacks around the HTTP protocol Intermediate 2006-05-31
Web Application Incident Response & Forensics: A Whole New Ball Game! (Rohyt Belani & Chuck Willis) Talk about Web Application Security incident handling and forensics given at the OWASP 2006 Seattle AppSec conference Intermediate 2006-10-18
Can (Automated) Testing Tools Really Find the OWASP Top 10? (Erwin Geirnaert) A talk about how automated testing tools stack up against the OWASP top 10 Intermediate 2006-05-30
RequestRodeo: Client Side Protection against Session Riding (Martin Johns / Justus Winter) Presentation given about how Sessions can be hi-jacked, etc... Novice 2006-05-31
Security Testing through Automated Software Tests (Stephen de Vries) Presentation given at the 2006 EuSec conference Intermediate 2006-05-31
In the Line of Fire: Defending Highly Visible Targets (Jeremy Poteet) Conference given at the 2005 DC AppSec conference Novice 2005-10-1
Google Hacking and Web Application Worms (Matt Fisher) Talk given at the 2005 DC AppSec conference Novice 2005-10-01
Establishing an Enterprise Application Security Program (Tony Canike) Talk given at the 2005 DC AppSec Conference Novice 2005-10-01
Why AJAX Applications Are Far More Likely To Be Insecure (And What To Do About It) (Dave Wichers) Dave's talk on AJAX given at the Seattle 2006 AppSec conference Intermediate 2006-10-01
[[ (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio) Security Analyst Intermediate 2015-07-04


Web Application Security Presentations

Web Application Security Presentations
Title Comment Level Date (yyyy-mm-dd)
Universal PDF XSS by Ivan Ristic Protecting Web Applications from Universal PDF XSS Intermediate 2007-06-28
Identity Management Basics (Derek Brown) Identity Management Basics Novice 2007-05-09
[Advanced SQL Injection (Victor Chapela) Detailed methodology for analyzing applications for SQL injection vulnerabilities Expert 2005-11-04
[Advanced Topics on SQL Injection Protection (Sam NG) 7 methods to prevent SQL injection attacks correctly and in a more integrated approach. Methods 1 to 3 are applicable during design or development life cycle. Method 4 is mainly from QA’s perspective. Methods 5 and 6 can be applied to production environment and are applicable even if you do not have access to or if you cannot change the source code. Other non-main stream technology are discussed in Method 7. Intermediate 2006-02-27
[Attacking Web Services (Alex Stamos) Web Services Introduction and Attacks Intermediate 2005-10-11
MMS Spoofing (Matteo Meucci) A Case-study of a vulnerable web application Intermediate
Ajax Security (Andrew van der Stock) Presentation on Ajax security for OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 Intermediate 2006-05-30
Advanced Web Services Security & Hacking (Justin Derry) Presentation given on Webservice security at the Seattle 2006 AppSec conference Intermediate 2006-10-18
Integration into the SDLC (Eoin Keary) A presentation about why and how to integrate the SDLC. Novice 2005-04-09
[[ (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio Intermediate 2015-07-04



Chapter Presentations

Chapter Presentations
Title Comment Level Month (Mon-yyyy) Chapter
Common Application Flaws (Brett Moore) OWASP New Zealand chapter presentation on Common Application Flaws Novice/Intermediate November 2008 New Zealand
Time Based SQL Injections (Muhaimin Dzulfakar) OWASP New Zealand chapter presentation on Time Based SQL Injections Intermediate September 2008 New Zealand
Browser Security (Roberto Suggi Liverani) OWASP New Zealand chapter presentation on Browser Security Intermediate September 2008 New Zealand
7/7/2008 SQL Injection (Columbus, OH) SQL Injection Presentation given at the Columbus, OH OWASP Chapter Meeting. Powerpoint, derby DB, and applicable java code. Novice / Intermediate July 2008 Columbus
Detecting Web Application Vulnerabilities Using Open Source Means (Konstantinos Papapanagiotou) OWASP Greek Chapter presentation given at the Open Source Software (FLOSS) Conference in Athens Novice May 2008 Greece
Hacking The World With Flash (Paul Craig) OWASP New Zealand chapter presentation on Flash security Intermediate April 2008 New Zealand
Web Spam Techniques (Roberto Suggi Liverani) OWASP New Zealand chapter presentation on Web Spam Techniques Intermediate April 2008 New Zealand
Xpath Injection Overview (Roberto Suggi Liverani) OWASP New Zealand chapter presentation on Xpath Injection Intermediate February 2008 New Zealand
Dependability for Java Mobile Code (Pierre Parrend) OWASP Swiss chapter presentation on Mobile Java Security Expert July 2007 Switzerland
Trust, Security and Usability (Roger Carhuatocto) in Spanish OWASP Spain chapter meeting (July'07) Intermediate July 2007 Spain
Tratamiento seguro de datos en aplicaciones in Spanish OWASP Spain chapter meeting (July'07) Intermediate July 2007 Spain
Ataques DoS en aplicaciones Web (Jaime Blasco Bermejo) in Spanish OWASP Spain chapter meeting (July'07) Intermediate July 2007 Spain
Seguridad en entornos financierosPedro (Pedro Sánchez) in Spanish OWASP Spain chapter meeting (July'07) Intermediate July 2007 Spain
Brian Chess from Fortify shared what's going on with the Java Open Source review project at the June NoVA OWASP meeting Java Open Review Intermediate June 2007 Virginia (Northern Virginia)
Brian Chess from Fortify, presentation to NoVA OWASP chapter in June 2007. Bytecode injection Expert June 2007 Virginia (Northern Virginia)
Security at the VMM Layer by Ted Winograd Security at the VMM Layer Expert June 2007 Virginia (Northern Virginia)
Evaluating and Tuning Web Application Firewalls (Barry Archer) Presentation given at Kansas City June 2007 chapter meeting Intermediate June 2007 Kansas City
Microsoft Security Development Lifecycle for IT (Rob Labbé) Presentation by Rob Labbe at Ottawa OWASP Chapter Novice May 2007 Ottawa
Application Denial of Service (Shaayy Cheen) Is it Really That Easy? Presentation given at the Israel Mini Conference in May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Israel
Fuzzing in Microsoft and FuzzGuru framework (John Neystadt) Presentation given at the Israel Mini Conference in May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Israel
Application Security, not just development (David Lewis) Presentation given at the Israel Mini Conference in May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Israel
Overtaking Google Desktop, Leveraging XSS to Raise Havoc (Yair Amit) Presentation given at the Israel Mini Conference in May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Israel
Unregister Attack in SIP (Anat Bremler-Barr, Ronit Halachmi-Bekel and Jussi Kangasharju) Presentation given at the Israel Mini Conference in May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Israel
Positive Security Model for Web Applications, Challenges and Promise (Ofer Shezaf) Presentation given at the Israel Mini Conference in May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Israel
.NET Reverse Engineering (Erez Metula) Presentation given at the Israel Mini Conference in May 2007 Expert May 2007 Israel
OWASP introduction (Ofer Shezaf) 2nd OWASP IL mini conference at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya Intermediate May 2007 Israel
Update on Internet Attack Statistics for Belgium in 2006 by Hilar Leoste (Zone-H) Update on Internet Attack Statistics for Belgium in 2006 Novice May 2007 Belgium
Securing Web Services using XML Security Gateways by Tim Bond Securing Web Services using XML Security Gateways Intermediate May 2007 Virginia (Northern Virginia)
Software Assurance in the Acquisition Process by Stan Wisseman Software Assurance in the Acquisition Process Intermediate May 2007 Virginia (Northern Virginia)
Legal Aspects of (Web) Application Security by Jos Dumortier Legal Aspects of (Web) Application Security Intermediate May 2007 Belgium
AppSec Research (University Leuven Belgium) Formal absence of implementation bugs in web applications: a case study on indirect data sharing by Lieven Desmet Expert May 2007 Belgium
A Scanner Sparkly A Scanner Sparkly, taken from the Phoenix OWASP presentations on Application Security Tools, May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Phoenix
Grey Box Assessment Lessons Learned "Grey Box Assessment Lessons Learned", taken from the Phoenix OWASP presentations, Application Security Tools, May 2007 Intermediate May 2007 Phoenix
OWASP Update and OWASP BeLux Board Presentation (Seba) OWASP Update and OWASP BeLux Board Presentation Novice May 2007 Belgium
Metics- What can we measure (Zed Abbadi) 19 April NoVa chapter meeting presentation on Security Metrics Novice April 2007 Virginia (Northern Virginia)
Web Services Hacking and Hardening (Adam Vincent) 3/8/07 NoVA chapter meeting, Adam Vincent from Layer7 Expert March 2007 Virginia (Northern Virginia)
OWASP Update (Seba) OWASP Update Novice Jan 2007 Belgium
XSS Worms (Sven Vetsch) XSS Worms Intermediate Feb 2007 Switzerland
OWASP Update (Seba) OWASP Update Novice Jan 2007 Belgium
WebGoat and Pantera presentation (Philippe Bogaerts) WebGoat and Pantera presentation Novice Jan 2007 Belgium
Security implications of AOP for secure software (Bart De Win) Security implications of AOP for secure software Expert Jan 2007 Belgium
testing for common security flaws (David Byrne) testing for common security flaws Intermediate Nov 2006 Denver
40-ish slides on analyzing threats (Olli) Analyzing Threats Novice Dec 2006 Helsinki
Attacking the Application (Dave Ferguson) Vulnerabilities, attacks and coding suggestions Intermediate Dec 2006 Kansas City
Ajax Security Concerns (Rohini Sulatycki) Ajax Security Concerns Intermediate Dec 2006 Kansas City
Anatomy of 2 Web Application Testing (Matteo Meucci) Anatomy of 2 Web Application Testing Intermediate Mar 2006 Italy
Testing From the Cloud: Is the Sky Falling? WTE Cloud-based Testing Intermediate Feb 2012 Austin
(https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User_talk:Briechenstein_Software_Studio) Open Web application Security Project Intermediate 2015-07-04

Chapter 4

Specification Language

This formal specification by language example presents cybersecurity studies (of over 10 projects) of how successful OWASP educational presentations test develop design and deliver cybersecurity software efficiently supporting formal methods as mathematically based techniquesthat are needed to assist in the design and implementation of reliable cybersecurity software.

Specification by language example is a must read for anyone serious about delivering translated cybersecurity language software that matters It is the result of a research on how teams internationally specify test develop design and deliver the right cybersecurity software without defects in very short computational delivery cycles With cybersecurity case studies and real examples this presentation helps you understand how successful teams implement mathematical cybersecurity by example denoting acceptable testing and behavior driven development to bridge the communication gap between committees stakeholders and contributing teams build quality into cybersecurity from the start by testing developing designing and delivering supported languagfor syntax highlighting purposes It presents the collective knowledge of about 50 cybersecurity projects ranging from high traffic websites to virtual back office cybersecurity systems implemented by teams as diverse as small startups to groups spread across different continents working in a range of processes including Extreme programming Kanban Scrum and similar processes often bundled together under the names Lean and Agile This protocol is for testers software developers business analysts and project managers working on Syntax and Agile projects or teams moving to an Agile development method that want to improve quality reduce correction of defective cybersecurity software and collaborate better with the OWASP committee. Smith


  • Retrieved notes from Categories Specification languages and Formal specification

For the last past decade computer systems have become increasingly more powerful as a result becoming more impactful to society Established engineering disciplines use mathematical analysis as the foundation of creating and validating product design Formal language specifications are one im such a way for achievement in software engineering as reliability once predicted Other methods such as testing are more commonly used to enhance code quality

Usability given as such a specification it is possible to use formal verification techniques to demonstrate that a system design is correct with respect to its specification This allows incorrect system designs to be revised before any major investments have been made into an actual implementation Another approach is to use provably correct refinement steps to transform a specification into a design which is ultimately transformed into an implementation that is correct by construction.

  • It is important to note that a formal specification is not an implementation but rather it may be used to develop an implementation Formal specifications describe what a system should do not how the system should do it A good specification must have some of the following attributes: adequate internally consistent unambiguous complete satisfied constructability manageability and evolvability Usability Communicability Powerful and efficient analysis which is one of the main reasons there is interest in formal specifications that will provide an ability to perform proofs on cybersecurity software implementations These proofs may be used to validate a specification verify correctness of design, or to prove that a program satisfies a specification.

Limitations A design (or implementation) cannot ever be declared “correct” on its own. It can only ever be “corrected with respect to a given specification Whether the formal specification correctly describes the problem to be solved is a separate issue It is also a difficult issue to address since it ultimately concerns the problem constructing abstracted formal representations of an informal concrete problem domain and such an abstraction step is not amenable to formal proof. However, it is possible to validate a specification by proving “challenge” theorems concerning properties that the specification is expected to exhibit.o_O If correct Olloclip In these theorems reinforce the specifier's understanding of the specification and its relationship with the underlying problem domain If not the specification probably needs to be changed to better reflect the domain understanding of those involved with producing (and implementing) the specification.



Flexibility As far as flexibility goes a lot of software companies use agile methodologies that focus on flexibility Doing a formal specification of the whole system up front is often perceived as being the opposite of flexible However there is some research into the benefits of using formal specifications with "agile" development Complexity is a requirement that is a high level of mathematical expertise and the analytical skills to understand and apply them effectively I have a solution to develop resources and models that allow for these techniques to be implemented but hide underlying mathematics


I hope to accomplish a good job of specifying user interfaces and user interaction that is Not cost-effective



Formal specification techniques have existed in various domains and on various scales for quite some time Implementations of formal specifications will differ depending on what kind of system they are attempting to model how they are applied and at what point in the software life cycle they have been introduced These types of models can be categorized into the following specification paradigms:


History-based specification

behavior based system histories assertions are interpreted over time State-based Specification behavior based on system states series of sequential steps (e.g. a financial transaction) languages such as Z, VDM or B rely on this paradigm+ Transition-based specification behavior based on transitions from state-to-state of the system best used with a reactive system languages such as Statecharts PROMELA STeP-SPL RSML or SCR rely on this paradigm Functional specification specify a system as a structure of mathematical functions OBJ, ASL, PLUSS, LARCH, HOL or PVS rely on this paradigm Operational Specification early languages such as Paisley GIST Petri nets or process algebras rely on this paradigm In addition to the above paradigms there are ways to apply certain heuristics to help improve the creation of these specifications The protocol referenced here best discusses heuristics to use when designing a specification.Heuristics= a rule or method that helps you solve problems faster than you would if you did all the computing


Resources: Algebraic specification= Providing a mathematical software engineering technique


References: ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Lamsweerde, A. V. (2000). "Formal specification". Proceedings of the conference on the future of Software engineering - ICSE '00. p. 147. doi:10.1145/336512.336546. ISBN ^ a b c d Sommerville, Ian (2009). "Formal Specification" (PDF). Software Engineering. Retrieved ^ a b c Nummenmaa, Timo; Tiensuu, Aleksi; Berki, Eleni; Mikkonen, Tommi; Kuittinen, Jussi; Kultima, Annakaisa (4 August 2011). "Supporting agile development by facilitating natural user interaction with executable formal specifications". ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 36 (4): 1–10. doi:10.1145/1988997.2003643. edit


Best Wishes, Brenda Smith [email protected]