> Gary, I would love a little refinement of the benefits to badnessometers. > Let's say I get a tool to tell me something I already suspect is wrong, > what percentage of the population are better than they expected?
I won't speak for Gary, but working a few doors down I have seen a few of the same things he has. Occasionally developers internally run free tools and surrepetitiously fix problems that the tools find (this happens in some cultures where management is particularly antagonistic towards security as a first class concern). In those unusual instances, I could see the results of a badnessometer coming out better than expected. Management would perceive that such things had never been run, and would be pleasantly surprised to learn that the sky might not be falling. Other than that, few people run a tool for the first time and see results better than they expected. Tools codify all manner of stuff that your developers almost certainly do not know how to check for (and if they do, they probably don't have time). > Is it better to do such a badness test by doing a POC with one of the > tool vendors in this space or do I get additional lift by going with > a consulting firm in this regard? I'm a consultant, take that as implied bias. But, I think you do get lift, and here's my analogy. Consider yourself a handy guy around the house who is going to do something moderately complicated, like redo a whole bathroom. You can buy all the tools and read all the books on how to do it for a lot less money than hiring a contractor to do the whole thing. There's some pretty specialized tools in plumbing, though, and they're tools you probably haven't used more than once or twice. Do you gain some extra insight into the use of those tools by hiring someone experienced to assist on the complicated parts? I think so. That someone experienced will come in, help you wield the unfamiliar tool, show you some things that he has experienced, and get you through the difficult parts. Then you, being the handy guy you are, are left to finish the bathroom, doing things you know how to do well. I think this analogy holds with a lot of the tools in security. You learn a lot by getting the experience someone brings, assuming you get a good someone. We, for example, have run a bunch of tools on a lot of different code bases. We know which rules tend to be alarmist and which ones are really important if they fire. Tool vendors won't give you that objectivity on their own tool, and some of the sales engineers don't have the insight into their own tool to know which warnings are just noise and which warnings are a big deal. A consultant can help you have a bake-off between tools, whereas a tool vendor typically lacks that objectivity. Paco ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com) as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community. _______________________________________________
