[WEB SECURITY] 2009 Top 25 Programming Errors
Arian J. Evans
arian.evans at anachronic.com
Wed Jan 14 17:18:57 EST 2009
Chris -- good point. I too have found that
insulting and confusing people is effective
in getting their attention.
Professionally I have found this approach
to be less productive than others.
The content I quoted is the primary
"Discussion" and the first content the
reader encounters under each "issue".
If our goal is to persuade developers
and business owners, we can be far
more effective than this.
If you like the doc and the negative
wording, cool, use it all you want.
For those of you that do not like this
approach -- this was meant as a head's
up that this is how SANS is going to have
you doing business going forward.
Anti-Gun/UN people: you should weep for
Mumbai. Your actions leave defenseless dead.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British
rule in India, history will look upon the Act
depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Chris Eng <ceng at veracode.com> wrote:
> You realize that the XSS description you quoted -- the one written in
> 2nd person with a casual tone -- is not the primary content? If you
> click on the CWE-79 link (http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html)
> you get the technical, professional version that you probably expected
> to see, complete with examples, etc. I think the paragraph you quoted
> is intended more to catch the developer's attention and get them to read
> further. The individual CWE pages are generally pretty well written,
> and I don't think anyone expected that the one paragraph would be
> sufficient to cover XSS.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arian.evans at gmail.com [mailto:arian.evans at gmail.com] On Behalf
>> Arian J. Evans
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:36 PM
>> To: Andy Steingruebl
>> Cc: websecurity at webappsec.org
>> Subject: Re: [WEB SECURITY] 2009 Top 25 Programming Errors
>> I am not in any way attacking or denigrating CWE
>> or Mitre. CWE is a fine effort by the first rate minds
>> over at Mitre.
>> My comments are about this "Top 25" list.
>> These are "standards" because they are being used as
>> a "standards" banner for products, contracts, RFPs, etc.
>> already and will continue to be like other Top SANS lists.
>> As I've said to several folks: It is an amateur piece of
>> work that will simply reinforce the amateur nature of most
>> security professionals to business owners and seasoned
>> software developers. Apology to anyone whose kid I'm
>> calling ugly here, but your kid is ugly.
>> The WASC TC is a better guideline of issues with web
>> software and in most ares more effective for communication.
>> I know there are those that dislike these "Top N" lists
>> but the spirit of this Top 25 is fine in my book.
>> I would like to see a more professional list published and
>> maintained by OWASP or WASC.
>> My main criticism of this Top 25 list is with the content
>> and the descriptions. Fixable? Sure.
>> The fact that this was released is such an unprofessional
>> state solidifies in my mind that Mitre and SANS are not
>> the folks to be maintaining this list.
>> I do not want to deal with this document and the inevitable
>> reality that will stem from it. I do not want to respond to
>> RFPs that ask if you test for "Failure to Protect Web Pages"
>> and I do not want to have to build reports that report on
>> this list with this garbage content and I do not want to
>> have to explain why the remediation language, costs, and
>> confusing suggestions are inaccurate or misguided.
>> Take the "Remediation Cost:" bucket. I used to use these
>> in my reports all the time, and agree with the spirit of intent
>> on including this in a "Top 25".
>> However -- the implementation in the Top 25 is misguided
>> and useless as a result and should be removed.
>> Half of the list is marked "Low" and there are even items
>> marked "Low to High". (? why bother)
>> There is no explanation or justification for any of it other than
>> letting people know "this stuff is easy to fix".
>> The reality of the cost of remediation is contextual to software
>> and a business capacity and situation. Any effort to communicate
>> cost should clearly communicate these realities and give the
>> reader some notion of context, what they need to consider
>> when evaluating cost, or simply be removed. Statistically
>> speaking, the more likely you are to have massive XSS issues
>> the more likely you are to have a hard time fixing it (because
>> you've got a mess of ASP classic spaghetti code that got
>> you where you are today). But I digress.
>> I could go on criticizing but I won't. I will recommend that
>> WASC or OWASP make a new Top 10 or Top 25 list and
>> that we tackle the same spirit of intent, understanding that
>> it will instantly become a "standard".
>> Barring that we are going to live with this document for
>> a while, and I am voicing my discontent.
>> Steven @ Mitre is a smart guy and I bet this will improve
>> over time if he starts filtering whom he listens too and
>> who is allowed to contribute content. Or provides a guideline
>> for content copy. Given who will use this and how it will
>> be used this should be a very professional business document,
>> not security-nerd speak with Star Treck naming conventions.
>> Folks who name their variables or servers R2D2 and C3PO
>> are probably not gonna agree with me here.
>> If I had seen this mess up for review before it was
>> published I would have commented or contributed
>> much earlier.
>> Feel free to note that I am too unmotivated to start my
>> own project to make a new Top N list.
>> Arian Evans
>> Anti-Gun/UN people: you should weep for
>> Mumbai. Your actions leave defenseless dead.
>> "Among the many misdeeds of the British
>> rule in India, history will look upon the Act
>> depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
>> blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Andy Steingruebl
> <steingra at gmail.com>
>> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Arian J. Evans
>> > <arian.evans at anachronic.com> wrote:
>> >> For all of you ignoring this -- this is going to replace the OWASP
>> >> 10 and WASC TC 1.0 or 2.0 etc. That is the goal/agenda of SANS &
>> >> Begin press releases, beat the marketing campaign drums.
>> > How are any of these "Standards" anyway? I'm not sure I understand
>> > what you're getting at here. Are you saying there ought to be some
>> > standard that tells people what they have to check for and that
>> > to be the TC2.0? If so, I think that is misguided as well.
>> > In either case though people are looking for requirements to stick
>> > into software purchase contracts to describe minimum security levels
>> > for something. None of these lists is particularly well suited to
>> > that task, but at the same time the CC (Common Criteria) wasn't
>> > exactly fitting that need either. Maybe you'd like to write a
>> > protection profile that your COTS software must meet? Not me.
>> > So, while the language of the list of items might not be perfect, I
>> > have a lot of respect for the CWE itself, as it does a pretty good
>> > as a taxonomy.
>> > What are you looking to have produced to counter this? How does the
>> > TC fit into that at all?
>> > --
>> > Andy Steingruebl
>> > steingra at gmail.com
Join us on IRC: irc.freenode.net #webappsec
Have a question? Search The Web Security Mailing List Archives:
Subscribe via RSS:
http://www.webappsec.org/rss/websecurity.rss [RSS Feed]
Join WASC on LinkedIn
More information about the websecurity