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_at_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.PDF
>
> F5 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.pdf
>
> I 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_at_cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:56 AM
> To: MindsX; Dinis Cruz
> Cc: owasp-dotnet_at_lists.sourceforge.net; owasp-
> london_at_lists.sourceforge.net; webappsec_at_securityfocus.com;
> websecurity_at_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_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Mon May 01 06:18:29 2006
> To: Dinis Cruz
> Cc: owasp-dotnet_at_lists.sourceforge.net; owasp-
> london_at_lists.sourceforge.net; webappsec_at_securityfocus.com;
> websecurity_at_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 'security
> product', e.g. a software application (WAF) that protects other
> software
> applications (Websites), do not understand the value of hiring
> independent 3rd party security companies to perform source code
> security
> audits 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 their
> code is crazy. Since these vendors are still in the 'Functionality
> Arms
> Race' phase of their products. Basically, the development teams are
> more
> focused 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
> protecting
> a 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 code
> processors, 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 customers
> supposed to purchase an extra WAF from a different vendor to
> protect the
> original WAF's interface ? anyways...
>
>
> Moreover - how many of the above build upon open-source with out
> fulfilling
> the 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 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on May 05 2006
Intro
