[WASC-WAFEC] What should we change in WAFEC 2.0?

Ido Breger I.Breger at F5.com
Thu Jun 7 07:35:08 EDT 2012

Thinking a bit more on the deployment modes section, would it make sense to elaborate on which features may not available per deployment mode?

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 2:39 PM
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

~ Ofer

From: Ofer Shezaf [mailto:ofer at shezaf.com]<mailto:[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!
~ Ofer

Ofer Shezaf
[+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...
URL: <http://lists.webappsec.org/pipermail/wasc-wafec_lists.webappsec.org/attachments/20120607/2a4ab10f/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the wasc-wafec mailing list