WebApp Sec mailing list archives
Re: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls)
From: "Dean H. Saxe" <dean () fullfrontalnerdity com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:37:38 -0400
How do you address the fact that the application scanners still miss a majority of bugs? I was at a client site yesterday when he told me about pointing WebInspect at HacmeBank from Foundstone (disclaimer: I work for Foundstone). WI didn't even find the most simple case of SQL injection on the homepage. How well do you think it does on a moderately secure application, instead of one designed with numerous easy to exploit flaws?
-dhs Dean H. Saxe, CEH dean () fullfrontalnerdity com"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy? "
--Gandhi Find out about my Hike for Discovery at www.fullfrontalnerdity.com/hfd/ On May 3, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Patrick Wolf wrote:
Regarding independent security verifications of the products themselves, several WAF vendors created an ICSA Premier Services certification for WAF to specifically answer this question. Part of this certification was a full audit of the management console as well.Here is the lab report for F5's TrafficShield:https://www.icsalabs.com/icsa/docs/html/communities/services/ Lab_Reports/F5_Certification_Final_Report.PDFF5 also contracted Aspect Security last year to test the security provided by TrafficShield vis-à-vis the OWASP Top Ten. That report can be found here:http://www.f5.com/reports/Aspect_F5_TrafficShield_Summary_Report.pdfI should also point out that it is our standard QA practice to test our UI with an application scanner.Patrick Wolf | Product Manager F5 Networks www.f5.com P 408-273-4859 D 206.272.5556 D 408-273-4859 M 408-390-9400 ________________________________________ From: Bill McGee (bam) [mailto:bam () cisco com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:56 AM To: MindsX; Dinis CruzCc: owasp-dotnet () lists sourceforge net; owasp- london () lists sourceforge net; webappsec () securityfocus com; websecurity () webappsec org Subject: RE: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp- London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls)The trick, of course, is that standards in this area are just starting to emerge. So who do you get to do the verification? There is no EAL equivalent for this space, #)3 people will always be able to find someone like Tolley Group to provide whatever verification you want if the fee is right.We *really* need a standards body to step up and establish/conduct a soup-to-nuts verification plan. An interoperability test would also be nice...That's MY .02... -bill -----Original Message----- From: MindsX [mailto:mindsx () gmail com] Sent: Mon May 01 06:18:29 2006 To: Dinis CruzCc: owasp-dotnet () lists sourceforge net; owasp- london () lists sourceforge net; webappsec () securityfocus com; websecurity () webappsec org Subject: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp- London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls)My $0.02... [I seem to be giving alot away recently].... 5 c) Where are the published independent security reviews of these products? I find amazing that vendors that are selling a 'securityproduct', e.g. a software application (WAF) that protects other softwareapplications (Websites), do not understand the value of hiringindependent 3rd party security companies to perform source code securityaudits to their products (note that the final results of these audits must be published and made available to clients). As discussed during the panel,it is probably impossible to create bug/vulnerability free applications, <but to NOT perform independent security audits to theircode is crazy. Since these vendors are still in the 'Functionality Arms Race' phase of their products. Basically, the development teams are morefocused on features, performance and user experience than on Security(and I don't have to tell you how 'secure' apps developed like this tend to be :). Maybe the solution is to put a WAF protecting a WAF protectinga WAF protecting a website :). Note to vendors: If am am wrong in this comment, feel free to prove me wrong and publish the security audits performed on your current product(s). I'm sure that some of the more experienced coders on the planet will disagree with the above...No mention of the fact that one vendor outright _refused_ to admit that web applications can be made secure - by that I do not mean the underlying codeprocessors, but more the functionality / logic enforcement and input validation....Nor the fact that they was a hard squeeze on the fact that the same vendors'appliance has known bugs.... Hmm... Secure your network by adding more bugs..... or are customerssupposed to purchase an extra WAF from a different vendor to protect theoriginal WAF's interface ? anyways...Moreover - how many of the above build upon open-source with out fulfillingthe requirements of the relative license? [apparently F5 are in the clear... or so they say...] Think the EFF should engage.... MindsX---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---Sponsored by: Watchfire The Twelve Most Common Application-level Hack Attacks Hackers continue to add billions to the cost of doing business onlinedespite security executives' efforts to prevent malicious attacks. This whitepaper identifies the most common methods of attacks that we have seen,and outlines a guideline for developing secure web applications. Download this whitepaper today!https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx? id=701300000007t9r ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: Watchfire The Twelve Most Common Application-level Hack Attacks Hackers continue to add billions to the cost of doing business online despite security executives' efforts to prevent malicious attacks. This whitepaper identifies the most common methods of attacks that we have seen, and outlines a guideline for developing secure web applications. Download this whitepaper today! https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx?id=701300000007t9r --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- RE: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls) Patrick Wolf (May 04)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls) Dinis Cruz (May 04)
- Re: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls) Dean H. Saxe (May 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls) Kit Wetzler (May 08)