[WASC-WAFEC] What should we change in WAFEC 2.0?
mark at imperva.com
Wed Jun 6 16:54:19 EDT 2012
My thoughts are:
1 - I agree with Ofer to remove the non WAF related criteria. I realize this will come down to the camp of those that focus on those things (e.g., Ido&F5) and those that don't (e.g., me&Imperva). Perhaps a compromise would be to have a section for "related capabilities" outside of the main flow.
2 - we need to have some sort of update on threats. This normally turns into a complicated discussion of the ontology of threat classification. Is there a way to avoid that?
3 - I think the issue that came up here was that the usage of the document and the content of it were at odds. In particular, when used as a template evaluation tool without any processing (which it often is), it results in conflicting "requirements" to evaluate against, especially with regard to deployment mode. I'd suggest taking a middle ground and keeping the deployment modes section, but changing the nature of the content to better explain and lend itself to a non-conflicting evaluation, but also to include customer goals / use cases as a section.
I also think that the use cases section could help us solve #2.
4 - my opinion would be to keep a flat list, but to provide a tool that let's the customer adjust importance based on their needs.
5 - I would leave this out of the criteria (since WAFs don't fix code it doesn't make sense to have fixing code as an evaluation element). IMO, this is a better topic for a different kind of forum...this tool is supposed to be a tool to evaluate WAFs.
6 - I think really orienting the criteria to be useable framework for an actual evaluation will make this simpler.
From: wasc-wafec-bounces at lists.webappsec.org [mailto:wasc-wafec-bounces at lists.webappsec.org] On Behalf Of Ofer Shezaf
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 4:39 AM
To: wasc-wafec at lists.webappsec.org
Subject: [WASC-WAFEC] What should we change in WAFEC 2.0?
Since you are all very quiet, I understand that WAFEC 2 will solve my pain and needs only :)
To that end, let me start with summarizing issues raised in the previous discussions on the mailing list (which I actually went and read...).
No specific order intended. This is what you wrote, though I must say I think it captures well the issues I am aware of and that generally speaking I agree with most.
1. Remove non WAF related criteria for example around application delivery.
* While integrating a WAF with other solutions is compelling to the client, it is not directly about WAFs and is also unbounded. This does present the challenge deciding what is relevant to a WAF in border cases such as an SSO functionality
2. Update the list of threats covered
3. Focus on customer use cases rather than how a WAF operates
* I think there was some hidden controversy here as I read opinions to focus on "technical" which I take to be opposite. I personally very much agree with this comment.
4. Not just a laundry list -
* Classify the importance of requirements. I believe that a minimal approach specifying several levels, for example: "mandatory", "important", "nice to have" and "site specific".
* Another complementing idea is to classify requirements as "security"/"functionality"/"performance" etc. letting the user determine if he prefers security over functionality etc.
* This would also provide the minimum requirements for a solution to be a WAF - the "mandatory" requirements.
* Regarding site specific requirements, it should be easy to the user to determine his own requirements, for example using a decision tree.
5. The "ethical" questions:
* How to address alternative solutions such as fixing the code?
6. Outreach - beyond the document
* Approaching NSS, ICSA and the likes to use WAFEC
* Release process, PR etc.
* Managing a list of public references to WAFEC
* Promote actual evaluations data sharing - No more spreadsheets.
7. Specific notes on V1, I have collected for further work.
A major question raised with opinions on both sides was a re-write vs. an update. I do think that understanding the requirements should direct that. Some issues raised which directly relate to that are:
1. Is the order of sections correct?
2. Incorporating the German OWASP chapter work on the same subject: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Best_Practices:_Web_Application_Firewalls
From: Ofer Shezaf [mailto:ofer at shezaf.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:45 PM
To: wasc-wafec at lists.webappsec.org<mailto:wasc-wafec at lists.webappsec.org>
Subject: WAFEC 2.0 phase 1: exploratory discussion (deadline: June 14th)
Thanks to all who volunteered to contribute to this project going forward (and those who didn't - you still can!)
I would like to boot up the project with a short exploratory phase identifying why we need a new release and therefore what we need in it.
To guide the discussion, I think that the reasons we need v2 fall into two categories:
1. Things that have changed - new (or obsolete) deployment modes, techniques, attacks, or even something new altogether.
2. Issues we discovered in WAFEC over the years. Some issues I encountered are identifying specific requirements and sorting out what's important and what's not.
>From this discussion I hope to derive a mission statement, a tasks list and therefore a schedule for the V2 project. All those will be the next phase.
I would give this phase two weeks (until June 14th), however I am on vacation from the 9th, so would accept input but not join the discussion on the last few days.
I would also want to thank Thorsten and Mirko for leading the project until now. I do hope that I will get from you all more cooperation than they did! I would also want to extend a personal apology to Thorsten and Mirko as the leader switch was not well coordinated. Thorsten and I discussed this over the last week and he gracefully agreed to let me give a try to leading this project forward.
Thank you all!
[+972-54-4431119; ofer at shezaf.com<mailto:ofer at shezaf.com>, www.shezaf.com<http://www.shezaf.com>]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wasc-wafec