[WEB SECURITY] WASC Threat Classification vs. OWASP ASVS

[Arian J. Evans]

The guy asked "which do you use for a blackbox test?" I said WASC/TC because
WASC/TC is blackbox.

"XSS" and "SQLi" are blackbox tests. You review code for errors of
commission, largely. If you look in source you are typically looking for
document.write and/or no escaping or lack of output encoding.  Verifying an
exploitable runtime condition is a blackbox test by definition.

OWASP ASVS is largely oriented around verification process and leverages
whitebox concepts and terms quite heavily.

Not a a bad thing at all.

So it is obvious that WASC/TC is the blackbox answer, and you could wrap up
in an an ASVS process and simply replace their verification terms with ones
more appropriate for blackbox, thus removing the OWASP whitebox and ESAPI
bias in ASVS.

Just trying to stay On Topic.


-- 
Arian Evans




On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Jim Manico <jim at manico.net> wrote:

> I'm a huge fan of OWASP ASVS because it leads us out of the neverending rat
> race of finding and fixing flaws. It focuses only on critical software
> controls needed to build a "secure" application. I tried adding in a few
> best practices that were rejected because they only wish to include
> •necessary• controls, a good thing, I think.
>
> I approach AppSec from a defensive coder perspecive; I just want to know
> what features to add to my software. ASVS helps me measure my software in
> that regard very well.
>
> To put it a other way, if I focus on vulnerablity assessment, I know what
> vulns I have and can fix those. Reminds me of blacklisting.
>
> If I focus on controls (ASVS + ESAPI) I tend to be able to build an app
> that can stand the test of time.
>
> Now, the WASC folks are super smart, and the threat classification is a
> solid body of work. Control based AppSec is not something I hear about often
> on these lists.
>
> Jim Manico
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:01 PM, robert at webappsec.org wrote:
>
>  Hello Roger,
>>
>> I lead the WASC TCv2 project and will be able to answer your questions,
>> albeit with a bias towards the TC.
>> For starters I am not the best person to speak on behalf of the OWASP ASVS
>> project (maybe they will respond?)
>> so I simply won't speak on it other than to say it appears to focus more
>> on process and maturity levels.
>>
>> Second please take a peek at
>> http://projects.webappsec.org/Using-the-Threat-Classification as it
>> outlines
>> ways people use the TC (myself included). Speaking on my own personal
>> experience (and others that I know)
>> I use the TC as
>>
>> A checklist:
>> I use the TC as a checklist of potential security issues (the TC breaks
>> this up into attacks and weaknesses)
>> that my application/site is likely to be affected by. I evaluate which
>> functionality my application offers from
>> a business and technical perspective and map that functionality to
>> possible weaknesses and attacks that will need
>> to be evaluated during a security review. For example if my application
>> uses XML and XQUERY I'd add XML Injection
>> (http://projects.webappsec.org/XML-Injection) and XQuery Injection (
>> http://projects.webappsec.org/XQuery-Injection)
>> to a list of security concerns, effectively creating a minimum security
>> test plan/threat model. I then ensure my
>> security evaluations/testing is checking (at the least) for the attacks
>> and weaknesses against this list. I've
>> personally had a situation where I've used the TC on a pen test with a 3rd
>> party and asked if they performed 'x'
>> testing which they responded no. Shortly after they performed the testing
>> and found an 'x' issue. In this situation
>> I used the TC as a checklist and it resulted in a finding that may or may
>> not have been discovered had I not asked.
>>
>> Reference Material
>> When I file a security defect I provide a URl to the appropriate TC
>> section for additional reading by development
>> and/or QA. This saves me time rewriting/explaining the issue and being to
>> brief. The TCv2 sub sections are all group
>> peer reviewed in multiple phases and once they are completed are locked
>> (random website visitors cannot modify them
>> as with a traditional wiki).
>>
>> Security Metrics
>> In particular the ability to flag defects with a certain attack or
>> weakness flag allowing me to gain better insight into
>> the more prevalent issues. This has been useful in developing better
>> security training, enhancing security testing/finding
>> gaps, and evaluating priority for security component development.
>>
>> Chances are you'd probably utilize both for different aspects in your
>> security program.
>> Based on your email I will likely write an in depth article on using the
>> TC beyond the light wiki page above
>> as we near publication.
>>
>> Regards,
>> - Robert Auger
>> WASC Co Founder and Threat Classification v2 Project Leader
>> http://www.webappsec.org/
>>
>>
>>> I'm putting together a requirements list for black box web pen testing
>>> and want to include a standards requirement. I've looked intothe WASC
>>> Threat Classification and OWASP's ASVS. The former seems to focus on
>>> high level threats, while the latter on testing controls present in
>>> the app. With the release of version two of the threat classification,
>>> which standard is more appropriate to use for web app pen testing and
>>> why?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>  Roger
>>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Join us on IRC: irc.freenode.net #webappsec
>>
>> Have a question? Search The Web Security Mailing List Archives:
>> http://www.webappsec.org/lists/websecurity/archive/
>>
>> Subscribe via RSS:
>> http://www.webappsec.org/rss/websecurity.rss [RSS Feed]
>>
>> Join WASC on LinkedIn
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/83336/4B20E4374DBA
>>
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Join us on IRC: irc.freenode.net #webappsec
>
> Have a question? Search The Web Security Mailing List Archives:
> http://www.webappsec.org/lists/websecurity/archive/
>
> Subscribe via RSS:http://www.webappsec.org/rss/websecurity.rss [RSS Feed]
>
> Join WASC on LinkedIn
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/83336/4B20E4374DBA
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webappsec.org/pipermail/websecurity_lists.webappsec.org/attachments/20090713/3bbaf03d/attachment.html>