WebApp Sec mailing list archives

Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent


From: "A.D. Douma" <addouma () home nl>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:58:54 +0100

Here is something about the application procedure:



--------

Requirements for 'newness, inventiveness and industrial applicability' are
applicable to the patent but will not be assessed. One can apply for a six
or twenty year patent. A 'newness' investigation (with national or
international) scope is optional. The twenty year patent does however
require a 'newness' investigation and if this is not requested within 13
months of the application the patent term will automatically be only six
years.



Thus, with a twenty year patent one has to request a 'newness'
investigation. This investigation is made within six to nine months. One
then has the possibility to adept the patent request according to the
investigation results. Registration of the patent is made automatically 18
months after the application, irrespective of the investigation or the
changing of the description of the application based on the investigation
findings.



A six year patent will be registered in the public patent register 18 months
after application. At that point the patent is granted and the patent holder
has exclusive rights.

--------



Would appear we all are a bit to late. And besides, there is always the
hacker and open source community we can rely on to publish the tools needed.
Sanctum will not spend $$ on civil suits unless they feel threatened.





----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sullo () cirt net>
To: <webappsec () securityfocus com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent


Well, this is not really *new* (filed in 2001), and it was raised on this
list
or bugtraq once before--however, it should be of great concern to all of us,
and
every product that tests a web server for security issues. I have not heard
of
any place Sanctum has tried to enforce this... anyone?

I just don't see how this could be valid...but I am not an expert or even
claim
to have a good understanding of patents.

There are many commercial and open source products that are doing this, have
been doing it for a while, and some that were probably doing it before
Sanctum
was even founded...

I would love for OWASP--as being an established force in webappsec and with
a
budget (?)--take the lead and get some legal advice, or request advice from
EFF,
on how this patent *actually* effects "the industry".

-Sullo


-- 
http://www.cirt.net/


-----Original Message-----
From: webtester () hushmail com [mailto:webtester () hushmail com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:38 AM
To: webappsec () securityfocus com; pen-test () securityfocus com
Subject: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent


===========================

As many of you know, Sanctum, Inc. has a been granted a
patent (United States Patent No. 6,584,569) describing a
process for automatically detecting potential
application-level vulnerabilities or security flaws in a web
application.  What you may not know is that this patent is a
"method" patent which means that it describes the way
something works rather than a "product" patent which
describes an actual product.  A method patent is the broadest
form of a patent which covers not just products but also the
process or way people work.

The Sanctum patent is very broad and virtually everyone who
is involved with web application security is in violation of
this patent.  This is because the patent basically describes
the process of penetration testing.  The patent can be broken
down into four elements.  They are:

1. The process to traverse a web application in order to
discover and actuate the links therein.  This is also called
a web crawler.  Something that explores the entire code for a
website and discovers all the links,  or URLs, contained on
the website.  The process then actuates each link found on
the website to generate HTTP requests for transmission to the
web server (i.e., exercises the links).  If the discovered
link requires user input, such as when the discovered link
includes a form, the process also provides fictitious values
as input based on the field or data type.

2. The process to analyze messages that flow or would flow
between an authorized client and a web server in order to
discover elements of the web application's interface with
external clients and attributes of these elements (e.g.,
links, forms, fixed fields, hidden fields, menu options,
etc.).  Here, the process sends the HTTP requests generated
above for each of the discovered links and receives the
associated responses from the web server.  The responses are
then analyzed, in the same manner in which the original
website was analyzed, to discover all of the links contained
therein.  The responses are also scanned for other
application interface elements, such as data parameters, and
their attributes (such as links, fill-in forms, fixed fields,
hidden fields, menu options, etc.).  Up to this point, the
process essentially explores and exercises all of the links
on a website by sending authorized requests, then analyzes
the responses for more links and interface elements (explores
multiple layers of the web application).

3. The process then generates unauthorized client requests in
which these elements are mutated, sends the mutated client
requests to the web server,  receives server responses to the
unauthorized client requests.  The process creates and sends
unauthorized or mutated requests (also called
"exploits") to the server.  The process creates a mutated
request for each interface element discovered above.  The
mutated request created by the process depends on the type of
interface element at issue.  For example, if the interface
element is a numeric field, the scanner will create a mutated
request that contains text as input, or if the interface
element is a link, the scanner will create a mutated request
that appends ".bak" to the link's path.

4. The process evaluates the results of the mutated requests.
Finally,  the process evaluates the response to the mutated
request to ensure that the web server did not accept the
unauthorized input value.  One example of such an evaluation
would be to look for responses containing keywords, such as
"error," "sorry" or "not found."  If such words are not
returned, the process would conclude that the mutated request
was accepted and that the web application is vulnerable to
attack (i.e., that the website contains a security flaw).

As you can see, this patent is very broad and covers
everything from security products to penetration testing.
Unless someone can develop a way to perform web application
security without violating one of the four points mentioned
above everyone is in violation of this patent.  Obviously,
such a patent gives Sanctum an unfair competitive advantage
within our market.  However, there is a way to challenge this
patent.  First and foremost is to find something that
addresses all the above points 1 year prior to when Sanctum
submitted the patent.  Sanctum submitted for the patent on
March 3, 2000 so the material must be dated on or before
March 2, 1999.  If you know of something that has been made
public (e.g.,  article, posting, product, etc.) that contains
all of the above elements post your findings to the list.  A
critical aspect is that is must contain all 4 elements from
above.  Anything less will not suffice.





Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?>>subloc=messenger&l=434


Promote security and make money with
the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427





Current thread: