Difference between revisions of "Projects/OWASP Zed Attack Proxy Project/Releases/ZAP 1.1.0/Assessment"

1. Is this release associated with a project containing at least the Project Wiki Page Minimum Content information?

I believe so

2. Is your tool licensed under an open source license? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - Apache License 2.0, referenced on both http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Zed_Attack_Proxy_Project and http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/

3. Is the source code and any documentation available in an online project repository? (e.g. Google Code or Sourceforge site) Please point out the link(s).

Yes - http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/source/checkout

4. Is there working code? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/source/checkout

5. Is there a roadmap for this project release which will take it from Alpha to Stable release? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Zed_Attack_Proxy_Project#tab=Roadmap

6. Are the Alpha pre-assessment items complete?

I believe so

7. Is there an installer or stand-alone executable? Please point out the link(s).

Yes, for Windows, Linux and Mac OS (being generated now) - http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/downloads/list

8. Is there user documentation on the OWASP project wiki page? Please point out the link(s).

There is some documentation on the project page http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Zed_Attack_Proxy_Project, but this also references the Google Code page which includes the full user guide: http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/wiki/HelpIntro, the latter is generated from the java help pages - migrating it to the OWASP wiki could prove tricky

9. Is there an "About box" or similar help item which lists the following? Please point out the link(s).

• Project Name
• Short Description
• Project Release Lead and contact information (e.g. email address)
• Project Release Contributors (if any)
• Project Release License
• Project Release Sponsors (if any)
• Release status and date assessed as Month-Year (e.g. March 2009)
• Link to OWASP Project Page
  

Yes - there is an about box which include things like the license and OWASP project page link. The credits are in the help file and online here: http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/wiki/HelpCredits

10. Is there documentation on how to build the tool from source including obtaining the source from the code repository? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/wiki/Building

11. Is the tool documentation stored in the same repository as the source code? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/source/browse/#svn/wiki

12. Are the Alpha and Beta pre-assessment items complete?

I believe so

13. Does the tool include documentation built into the tool? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - a full help file is included which is also available online: http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/wiki/HelpIntro

14. Does the tool include build scripts to automate builds? Please point out the link(s)

Yes - http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/source/browse/trunk/build/build.xml

15. Is there a publicly accessible bug tracking system? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/issues/list

16. Have any existing limitations of the tool been documented? Please point out the link(s).

Yes - all known limitations raised as bugs

1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?

Yes. A stand-alone executable exists; it installs the files correctly with the corresponding shortcuts in place.

2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?

Yes. Pressing F1 triggers the OWASP ZAP User Guide window to appear. The documentation is also at: =http://code.google.com/p/zaproxy/wiki/HelpReleases1_1_0

3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?

Yes.

4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?

Yes. It took less than 2 minutes to build after import into eclipse.

5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?

Yes. Standard JavaDoc format is also present.

6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?

No. This is definately a project that should be in beta, if not release!

7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?

There is room for improvement around key functionality that will make the tool unique in terms of the features that it offers. This is on the roadmap for it's next release.

8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?

Yes. Carrying a port of paros also helps in this matter.

9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?

Yes.

10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.

Yes. A few warning do come back from javac, but they are minor.

11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)

Yes. There is 40 or some defects on the list, addressed at a priority, etc.

12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.

A few in terms of memory requirements around proxying and spidering. This is more on the side of "know what you are doing" then "the tool brakes".

13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?

Yes. I want to see more functionality though!

14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?

Nothing; this can move to beta.

1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?

It is easy to use and installs smoothly. No Problems here.

2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?

Sufficient documentation exists.

3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?

OK!

4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?

No problems to compile it within in eclipse - fine!

5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?

JAVADOC

6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?

NO

7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?

It definitely needs more work - ideas pointing in an interesting direction can be found on the roadmap

8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?

Yes

9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?

Yes

10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.

Yes

11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)

Yes (GoogleCode)

12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.

Quite memory consuming sometimes

13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?

Yes

14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?

Not for moving into BETA. For a release - more functionality would be nice to see.