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:
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent, (continued)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent dreamwvr () dreamwvr com (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Matthew Wagenknecht (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Richard M. Smith (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent cdowns (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Levenglick, Jeff (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent A.D. Douma (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Matthew Wagenknecht (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Levenglick, Jeff (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Thermos, Panayiotis A. [RA] (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent A.D. Douma (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 17)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Matt Kenigson (Jan 17)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent pentester2189114 (Jan 20)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 20)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent pentester2189114 (Jan 20)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent owasp (Jan 20)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent pentester2189114 (Jan 20)