Hiya Arian,
If you choose a "test" application such as Foundstones Hackmebooks to
run a number of applications against the benchmark is the bake off
against each of the tools.
We can evaluate which tools produced the most false positives and even
worse False negatives (biggest problem IMHO).
I did a bake off between ScanD* and AppSca* before and we compared to
a manual pen test performed by a "good" tester.
What we got was a comparison between the two tools and also a
comparison between the tools and a human.
This was done on a number of "real" applications picked for complexity and size.
Without the third control (manual test) how do we know if the results
are accurate for either tools?
If we don't have a manual aspect to compare against we can approach
the bake off by testing an application with known vulnerabilities such
as the apps mentioned before.
SP* Dy**** give you the option to test against their webapp but this
is useless as the app is probably tailored to the tool (which is
easier than the tool being tailored to the app).
In general tools are for "the easy stuff" they do not understand
workflow or the logic of the app. They can not handle dynamic URL's:
One app i tested recently with a number of tools got no results at all
but after testing manually it had many XSS issues. These were
exploited only by understanding the workflow.
I don't have any "big words" to explain this carry-on but blame the
marketing staff who know much about very little and very little about
much.
Eoin (OWASP - Ireland).
On 05/10/05, Evans, Arian <Arian.Evans_at_fishnetsecurity.com> wrote:
> "In the computer industry, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks."
>
> The Jargon File, 4.4.7, Eric S. Raymond
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/benchmark.html
>
> I agree entirely with Ofer's first paragraph below, but the example
> in the second paragraph isn't a "benchmark".
>
> If you want to know the "quality" of a web application security tool,
> scanner, WAF, source code analyzer, pixie dust, "enterprise anomaly
> detector", you mean the term 'quality' in regards to the ability
> of that tool to accomplish some goal.
>
> My goal in evaluating automated testing tools may be roughly defined:
>
> "Ability to accurately identify software defects that lead to specific
> security implications of the kind that a tool claims to detect."
>
> I /am/ interested in a global catalogue of software security defects
> that lead to security implications, and evaluating tools against
> the kind and degree of catalogue defects they detect.
>
> However, at this state in the industry there is no global catalogue,
> no consensus, and I am more interested in evaluating whether or
> not a vendor that claims to detect/block XSS attacks does do so.
>
> There are several types of "benchmarks" that have value:
>
> 1) What does a widget do on the applications you need to use it on?
> 2) What does a widget do in relation to its claims?
> 3) What does a widget do in relation to its competitive landscape?
>
> "Additionally, you will not know in advance what the security problems
> are (but than this is the reason to choose this method: neither will
> the tool makers)."
>
> Downloading an opensource (src='random') package and running a tool
> against it to analyze results provides a benchmark of the type:
>
> 4) What unquantified results can this widget produce from random input?
>
> Unless you go through that application manually and know *exactly*
> what it is you are looking for I find limited value in those results.
>
> Again, though, we need to more clearly define the target here before
> we go off shooting holes in random source.
>
> note: I think most of us on this list agree here, but certain vendors
> are still performing their tautological magic shows on pre-built apps,
> or pulling the (src=$random) stunts for the uninitiated buyers.
>
> -ae
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ofer Shezaf [mailto:Ofer.Shezaf_at_breach.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:12 PM
> > To: Eoin Keary; Peine,Holger
> > Cc: webappsec_at_securityfocus.com
> > Subject: RE: Good benchmark application for web security
> > testing tools?
> >
> >
> >
> > Any single application that you select, especially a well known
> > benchmark application, would achieve biased results, as it is
> > VERY easy
> > to make a testing software work fine with a specific application.
> >
> > A somewhat better solution would be to select (yourself) a web
> > application on sourceforge (neither the most popular nor the least
> > popular) and test against it. This approach has its problems. For
> > example, you will probably find a PHP application. Additionally, you
> > will not know in advance what the security problems are (but than this
> > is the reason to choose this method: neither will the tool makers).
> >
> > ~ Ofer
> >
> > Ofer Shezaf
> > OWASP Israel Chair
> > http://www.owasp.org/local/israel.html
> >
> > CTO, Breach Security
> > Phone (US): +1 (760) 268.1924 ext. 702
> > Phone (Israel): +972 (9) 956.0036 ext.212
> > Cell: +972 (54) 443.1119
> > ofers_at_breach.com
> > http://www.breach.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eoin Keary [mailto:eoinkeary_at_gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:39 PM
> > > To: Peine,Holger
> > > Cc: webappsec_at_securityfocus.com
> > > Subject: Re: Good benchmark application for web security testing
> > tools?
> > >
> > > hackmebank Or hackmebooks from foundstone?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 04/10/05, Peine,Holger <Holger.Peine_at_iese.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > > > The idea of reviewing the available (free or commercial) web
> > application
> > > > security testing tools has been mentioned several times on this
> > list.
> > > > However, what would a good benchmarking application for
> > these tools
> > be,
> > > > i.e. a "typical" web application with a number of known
> > vulnerabilities?
> > > >
> > > > Initially I was thinking of Webgoat, which at least has a nice
> > variety
> > > > of vulnerabilities, but Webgoat's structure is not very
> > representative
> > > > of your typical web application's structure and workflow
> > (and apart
> > from
> > > >
> > > > that, Webgoat is somewhat small, too). So, what application would
> > you
> > > > suggest?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your opinion,
> > > > Holger Peine
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dr. Holger Peine, Security and Safety
> > > > Fraunhofer IESE, Fraunhofer-Platz 1, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
> > > > Phone +49-631-6800-2134, Fax -1299 (shared)
> > > > www.iese.fraunhofer.de/Staff/peine -- PGP key on request or via
> > > > http://pgp.mit.edu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
Received on Oct 06 2005
Intro
