"Architecture" is also an overloaded term, often meaning either a design (the output of architects) or the implementation of certain types of design (the output of engineers).
Hoping to clarify Chris's comment on architecture flaws: architecture defects as in the defects in the output produced by architects are "design flaws"; architecture defects as in the defects in the output of programmers/coders/engineers are "implementation flaws". FWIW, I agree with Chris, "design flaw" and "implementation flaw" seem better/more descriptive/less confusing than revised definitions for "flaw" and "bug". (Then again, I once worked at @stake..., on the other hand, IIRC this terminology is more consistent with what you find in Ross Anderson's classic "Security Engineering".) Michael -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wysopal Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:35 PM To: Gary McGraw Cc: William Kruse; Wall, Kevin; Secure Coding Mailing List Subject: RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws In the manufacturing world, which is far more mature than the software development world, they use the terminology of "design defect" and "manufacturing defect". So this distinction is useful and has stood the test of time. Flaw and defect are synonymous. We should just pick one. You could say that the term for manufacturing software is "implementation". So why do we need to change the terms for the software world? Wouldn't "design defect" and "implementation defect" be clearer and more in line with the manufacturing quality discipline, which the software quality discipline should be working towards emulating. (When do we get to Six Sigma?) I just don't see the usefulness of calling a "design defect" a "flaw". "Flaw" by itself is overloaded. And in the software world, "bug" can mean an implementation or design problem, so "bug" alone is overloaded for describing an implementation defect. At @stake the Application Center of Excellence used the terminology "design flaw" and "implementation flaw". It well understood by our customers. As Crispin said in an earlier post on the subject, the line is sometimes blurry. I am sure this is the case in manufacturing too. Architecture flaws can be folded into the design flaw category for simplicity. My vote is for a less overloaded and clearer terminology. -Chris P.S. My father managed a non-destructive test lab at a jet engine manufacturer. They had about the highest quality requirements in the world. So for many hours I was regaled with tales about the benefits of performing static analysis on individual components early in the manufacturing cycle. They would dip cast parts in a fluorescent liquid and look at them under ultraviolet light to illuminate cracks caused during casting process. For critical parts which would receive more stress, such as the fan blades, they would x-ray each part to inspect for internal cracks. A more expensive process but warranted due to the increased risk of total system failure for a defect in those parts. The static testing was obviously much cheaper and delivered better quality than just bolting the parts together and doing dynamic testing in a test cell. It's a wonder that it has taken the software security world so long to catch onto the benefits of static testing of implementation. I think we can learn a lot more from the manufacturing world. On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Gary McGraw wrote: > Hi all, > > When I introduced the "bugs" and "flaws" nomenclature into the > literature, I did so in an article about the software security workshop > I chaired in 2003 (see http://www.cigital.com/ssw/). This was > ultimately written up in an "On the Horizon" paper published by IEEE > Security & Privacy. > > Nancy Mead and I queried the SWEBOK and looked around to see if the new > usage caused collision. It did not. The reason I think it is important > to distinguish the two ends of the rather slippery range (crispy is > right about that) is that software security as a field is not paying > enough attention to architecture. By identifying flaws as a subcategory > of defects (according the the SWEBOK), we can focus some attention on > the problem. > > >>From the small glossary in "Software Security" (my new book out > tomorrow): > > Bug-A bug is an implementation-level software problem. Bugs may exist in > code but never be executed. Though the term bug is applied quite > generally > by many software practitioners, I reserve use of the term to encompass > fairly > simple implementation errors. Bugs are implementation-level problems > that > can be easily discovered and remedied. See Chapter 1. > > Flaw-A design-level or architectural software defect. High-level defects > cause 50% of software security problems. See Chapter 1. > > In any case, I intend to still use these terms like this, and I would be > very pleased if you would all join me. > > gem > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > This electronic message transmission contains information that may be > confidential or privileged. The information contained herein is intended > solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If > you are not the intended recipient (or otherwise authorized to receive this > message by the intended recipient), any disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of the contents of the information is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic message transmission in error, please contact the sender by > reply email and delete all copies of this message. Cigital, Inc. accepts no > responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from > the use of this email or its contents. > Thank You. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > _______________________________________________ > Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) > SC-L@securecoding.org > List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l > List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php > _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
