Friday, 14 June 2013

My alternative OWASP Top10

With the release of the 2013 OWASP Top10 Project businesses around the world have a security bar against which they can measure themselves.  This OWASP project, more than any other, has the ability to influence business, due in no small part to it being referenced in a variety of compliance standards e.g. PCI.  So this means businesses are listening and the question then becomes, is the right message being sent?

My concern with the OWASP Top10 is that it treats the symptoms and not the disease.  It essentially lists specific vulnerabilities (or attacks) and my question is - might it not be better to list the factors that lead to these vulnerabilities?  If we can address the disease, then the symptoms will also disappear.

I would clarify that there are other OWASP projects to treat the disease, such as the OpenSAMM, Development Guide, or ASVS, but these projects don't have the reach and influence of the Top10.  So in that sense there is potential benefit in having a Top10 that addresses the cause of the symptoms.

So my alternative top ten are:
  1. Legacy code
  2. Undue reliance on application frameworks
  3. Security work is not allocated enough time
  4. Insufficient security architecture/design
  5. Insufficient security code review
  6. Undue reliance on security libraries
  7. Supporting legacy browsers
  8. Inadequate authorisation
  9. Ineffective authentication
  10. Lack of security testing
If your business has minimised the risk of all of the above issues, across all your applications, then your application security is probably in reasonable shape.

Below I have provided a bit more detail and listed ways in which you might not be adequately securing your applications.  If you answer in the affirmative to the points following each entry below, then the issue may affect you and you may need to address the risk it poses.

1. Legacy Code
The definition of 'legacy' is going to be relative, but I'll suggest any code that isn't actively maintained, is sufficiently old or is based on a different technology than you are using for new code.  Legacy code could be a problem if:
- existing code is treated as sacrosanct so nobody wants to change it
- there is code that no existing employee wrote, is un-documented, is magic, and no one wants to touch it
- there is code being used no one knows about
- there is code being used that was written before 'security' was an issue
- there is code being used that was written for a different set of requirements
- there is code being used that was written for a different operational situation
- there is no budget to change or update legacy code
- the risk of changing code is perceived greater than the security risk it poses

2. Undue reliance on application frameworks
Most applications have an underlying framework on which they are built.  Often this framework is developed externally, but the same applies if it is written in-house.  Application frameworks can be a problem if:
- it's assumed the framework solves all security issues
- it's not understood how your framework protects against common vulnerabilities
- the framework is relied on for security it doesn't provide
- it's security features are used in the wrong way
- it isn't realised the security features the framework provides are only a partial solution
- the framework has plugins that extend security
- the security plugins are numerous and it's difficult to know which to use
- security plugins only provide a partial security solution (that they are trying to solve)
- the framework/plugins are not routinely tested for security (by white hats at least)
- the framework is not secure by default

3. Security work is not allocated enough time
There is never enough time for most things, but too often there is no time explicitly dedicated to security.  It's fairly well understood that the performance of your application depends on the amount of time you dedicate to performance coding and analysis - well the same is true for security.  You might not have enough time dedicated to security if:
- there are security requirements, but no allocated time in the project plan to ensure they are met
- there is no security sprint
- there is no security testing time allocated
- security work is lumped together with other non-functional requirement time
- code review has no dedicated time for security

4. Insufficient security architecture/design
Software has a tendency to evolve, but failing to keep track of the bigger picture, especially when it comes to security, can be the source of vulnerabilities without easy solutions.  You may not be investing enough in security architecture/design if:
- security solutions are ad-hoc
- ad-hoc security solutions are reused without re-evaluation
- multiple applications use differing security solutions
- a single application uses differing security solutions
- new mitigations are bolted onto existing solutions
- security solutions are not documented
- incompatible security solutions has led to hacks for interoperability
- security solution knowledge is held by a few key developers
- teams aren't aware of existing security solutions
- teams re-invent the security wheel

5. Insufficient security code review
Code needs to be reviewed specifically for security vulnerabilities, either by the security team or experienced developers.  You might not be dedicating enough code review resources to security code review if:
- the ratio of the security team to developers makes it impractical to review all code
- the security relevant code is inline with the rest of the code meaning every line has to examined to just find the most obvious issues e.g. inline input validation.
- the code does not lend itself to security static analysis tools
- no metrics are used to measure the effectiveness of security code review
- your code review capabilities do not scale
- you don't automate review using static analysis
- you security code review only major changes
- your IDE does not have real time security review functionality

6. Undue reliance on security libraries
We try to make using security easier by providing libraries that expose common security functionality.  But security is complicated and fragile and it's impossible to ensure all developers understand the nuances of using libraries.  Security libraries may be a cause of concern if:
- there are no wrappers around cryptographic libraries to hide cryptographic details or complexity
- use of security libraries is optional
- there is no auditing of the use of security libraries
- there is no updating of security libraries
- security libraries are misconfigured
- there is no abstraction layer over security libraries so they can be replaced or complexities hidden
- security libraries are used to solve problems that should be solved at the architectural or design level

7. Supporting legacy browsers
We all want our software to reach as many users as possible and we don't want to stop supporting existing customers, but at some point the focus must be more on the future than the past.  Catering for legacy browsers might be a problem if you are:
- supporting IE6
- rejecting new security solutions because they don't work in legacy browsers
- not leveraging new security features of current versions of browsers
- not restricting your applications functionality if you must be compatible with legacy browsers
- not applying the principles of Unobtrusive JavaScript
- not applying the principles of Progressive Enhancement

8. Inadequate authorisation
Authorisation is a fundamental part of the security of any application.  It is also one of the most difficult to implement, maintain and manage.  Your authorisation may need to be re-evaluated if you:
- don't have a framework for authorisation
- rely on developers to include checks for permissions in business logic
- are unable to audit authorisation
- fail open
- don't apply authorisation to each stage of multi-stage functionality
- don't tie resource requests with unique IDs to the user associated with the resource e.g. in SQL
- are making managing permissions so difficult that implementing 'least privilege' is impractical

9. Ineffective authentication
Authentication is a pre-requisite for authorisation and so it's important it is effective.  Many applications fail to appreciate the various authentication mechanisms they employ have largely the same security requirements.  Your current authentication mechanisms may not be effective if you are:
- not storing passwords securely
- thinking a session token needs any less protection than a password
- sharing session tokens with 3rd party integrators
- sharing user credentials with 3rd party integrators
- designing a system so users have to share their credentials with 3rd party integrators
- using OAuth
- not telling users to use a password manager
- not enforcing password complexity
- not requiring 2FA for resetting a password

10. Lack of security testing
Vulnerabilities are inevitable, but security testing will minimise the amount that you ship.  The amount of security testing should be proportional to the risks the application faces.  You might not be doing enough security testing if you are:
- not doing any security testing
- not using a web application security scanner
- not training testers to try negative test cases
- not getting periodic 3rd party security testing
- not insisting your service providers prove they do security testing

1 comment:

  1. Manico and I have an Proactive Controls project running. Come join us. Your top 10 aligns with about 1/2 to 3/4 of ours.