>I for one am pretty satisfied with the rate at which things are >progressing
I dunno... Again, trying to keep it pithy: I for one welcome our eventual new [insert hostile nation state here] overlords. </joke> What I see from my vantage point is a majority of people who (1)should know better given their leadership positions that don't or (2)who willingly ignore security-related concerns to advance their personal business goals, trusting in the availability of lawyers or the ability to punch out before stuff hits the fan, speculating (perhaps) on motives. Excuse me now while I get back go my Rosetta Stone lesson. </joke> Mike On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gary McGraw <g...@cigital.com> wrote: > Hi Steve (and sc-l), > > I'll invoke my skiing with Eli excuse again on this thread as well... > > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Wall, Kevin wrote: > > To study something scientifically goes _beyond_ simply gathering > > observable and measurable evidence. Not only does data needs to be > > collected, but it also needs to be tested against a hypotheses that > offers > > a tentative *explanation* of the observed phenomena; > > i.e., the hypotheses should offer some predictive value. > > On 2/2/10 4:12 PM, "Steven M. Christey" <co...@linus.mitre.org> wrote: > >>I believe that the cross-industry efforts like BSIMM, ESAPI, top-n lists, > >>SAMATE, etc. are largely at the beginning of the data collection phase. > > I agree 100%. It's high time we gathered some data to back up our claims. > I would love to see the top-n lists do more with data. > > Here's an example. In the BSIMM, 10 of 30 firms have built top-N bug > lists based on their own data culled from their own code. I would love to > see how those top-n lists compare to the OWASP top ten or the CWE-25. I > would also love to see whether the union of these lists is even remotely > interesting. One of my (many) worries about top-n lists that are NOT bound > to a particular code base is that the lists are so generic as to be useless > and maybe even unhelpful if adopted wholesale without understanding what's > actually going on in a codebase. [see < > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1322398>]. > > Note for the record that "asking lots of people what they think should be > in the top-10" is not quite the same as taking the union of particular top-n > lists which are tied to particular code bases. Popularity contests are not > the kind of data we should count on. But maybe we'll make some progress on > that one day. > > >Ultimately, I would love to see the kind of linkage between the collected > >data ("evidence") and some larger goal ("higher security" whatever THAT > >means in quantitative terms) but if it's out there, I don't see it > > Neither do I, and that is a serious issue with models like the BSIMM that > measure "second order" effects like activities. Do the activities actually > do any good? Important question! > > >The 2010 OWASP Top 10 RC1 is more data-driven than previous versions; same > >with the 2010 Top 25 (whose release has been delayed to Feb 16, btw). > >Unlike last year's Top 25 effort, this time I received several sources of > >raw prevalence data, but unfortunately it wasn't in sufficiently > >consumable form to combine. > > I was with you up until that last part. Combining the prevalence data is > something you guys should definitely do. BTW, how is the 2010 CWE-25 (which > doesn't yet exist) more data driven?? > > >I for one am pretty satisfied with the rate at which things are > >progressing and am delighted to see that we're finally getting some raw > >data, as good (or as bad) as it may be. The data collection process, > >source data, metrics, and conclusions associated with the 2010 Top 25 will > >probably be controversial, but at least there's some data to argue about. > > Cool! > > >So in that sense, I see Gary's article not so much as a clarion call for > >action to a reluctant and primitive industry, but an early announcement of > >a shift that is already underway. > > Well put. > > gem > > company www.cigital.com > podcast www.cigital.com/~gem <http://www.cigital.com/%7Egem> > blog www.cigital.com/justiceleague > book www.swsec.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________
