Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-07 Thread Crispin Cowan
/ *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Crispin Cowan *Sent:* Fri 2/3/2006 12:12 PM *To:* Gary McGraw *Cc:* Kenneth R. van Wyk; Secure Coding Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws Gary McGraw wrote: To cycle this all back around to the original posting, lets

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-07 Thread Jeff Williams
analysis can't help verify all of them in an application. --Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary McGraw Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:13 PM To: Brian Chess; sc-l@securecoding.org Subject: RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws Hi all, I'm

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-07 Thread Julie Ryan
. --Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary McGraw Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:13 PM To: Brian Chess; sc-l@securecoding.org Subject: RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws Hi all, I'm afraid I don't concur with this definition. Here's

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-06 Thread Evans, Arian
PROTECTED] [email] http://www.fishnetsecurity.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Crispin Cowan Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:12 PM To: Gary McGraw Cc: Kenneth R. van Wyk; Secure Coding Mailing List Subject: Re: [SC-L] Bugs

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-06 Thread Gary McGraw
www.swsec.com -Original Message- From: Brian Chess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat Feb 04 00:56:16 2006 To: sc-l@securecoding.org Subject:RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws The best definition for flaw and bug I've heard so far is that a flaw is a successful implementation of your intent

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-06 Thread Gary McGraw
-Original Message- From: Evans, Arian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri Feb 03 18:29:29 2006 To: Crispin Cowan; Gary McGraw; Secure Coding Mailing List; Kenneth R. van Wyk Subject:RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws per WMF// Let's face it, this was legacy, possibly deprecated code

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Blue Boar
David Crocker wrote: I don't think this analogy between software development and manufacturing holds. There are no manufacturing defects in software construction For software: A design defect is when you correctly implement what you wanted, and you wanted the wrong thing. A manufacturing

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread John Steven
Ah, The age-old Gary vs. jOHN debate. I do believe along the continuum of architecture--design--impl. that I've shown the ability to discern flawed design from source code in source code reviews. Cigital guys reading this thread have an advantage in that they know both the shared and exclusive

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread James Stibbards
when we're done, I realize. See you at SSS. - James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary McGraw Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:13 AM To: Kenneth R. van Wyk; Secure Coding Mailing List Subject: RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws To cycle this all

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Crispin Cowan
Gary McGraw wrote: To cycle this all back around to the original posting, lets talk about the WMF flaw in particular. Do we believe that the best way for Microsoft to find similar design problems is to do code review? Or should they use a higher level approach? Were they correct in saying

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Dana Epp
Title: Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws I think I would word that differently. The design defect was when Microsoft decided to allow meta data to call GDI functions. Around 1990 when this was introduced the threat profile was entirely different; the operating system could trust the metadata

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Nick FitzGerald
Gary McGraw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To cycle this all back around to the original posting, lets talk about the WMF flaw in particular. Do we believe that the best way for Microsoft to find similar design problems is to do code review? Or should they use a higher level approach? I'll leave

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Nick FitzGerald
Al Eridani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the design says For each fund that the user owns, do X and my code does X for all the funds but it skips the most recently acquired fund, I see it as a manufacturing error. On the other hand, if a user sells all of her funds and the design does not

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread John Steven
Kevin, Jeff Payne and I were talking about this last night. Jeff's position was, ...Or, you could just use the existing quality assurance terminology and avoid the problem altogether. I agree with you and him; standardizing terminology is a great start to obviating confusing discussions about

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Gary McGraw
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

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Chris Wysopal
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

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Gary McGraw
Hi Weld, You make a very good point. I think we have lots to learn from manufacturing. As a matter of practice, I usually use the terms that you suggested as modifiers and say: implementation bug design flaw software defect As long as there is a clear way to separate the two ends of the

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Gavin, Michael
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

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Crispin Cowan
John Steven wrote: Re-reading my post, I realize that it came off as heavy support for additional terminology. Truth is, we've found that the easiest way to communicate this concept to our Consultants and Clients here at Cigital has been to build the two buckets (flaws and bugs). My main

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Jeff Williams
, February 01, 2006 5:07 PM To: John Steven Cc: Will Kruse; Secure Coding Mailing List Subject: Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws John Steven wrote: I'm not sure there's any value in discussing this minutia further, but here goes: We'll let the moderator decide that :) 1) Crispin, I think you've

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Brian Chess
Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wysopal Sent: 02 February 2006 21:35 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

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Gary McGraw
I'm sorry, but it is just not possible to find design flaws by staring at code. gem -Original Message- From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu Feb 02 20:32:29 2006 To: 'Secure Coding Mailing List' Subject:RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws At the risk of piling

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Jeff Williams
Um, so if there is no documentation you can't find design flaws? --Jeff -Original Message- From: Gary McGraw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:50 PM To: Jeff Williams; Secure Coding Mailing List Subject: RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws I'm sorry, but it is just

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Gary McGraw
and flaws Um, so if there is no documentation you can't find design flaws? --Jeff -Original Message- From: Gary McGraw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:50 PM To: Jeff Williams; Secure Coding Mailing List Subject: RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws I'm sorry

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Jeff Williams
is that it's correct. --Jeff -Original Message- From: Gary McGraw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secure Coding Mailing List Subject: RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws Not unless you talk to the designer. You might get lucky and find

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-02 Thread Chris Wysopal
; 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

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-01 Thread Crispin Cowan
Gary McGraw wrote: If the WMF vulnerability teaches us anything, it teaches us that we need to pay more attention to flaws. The flaw in question seems to be validate inputs, i.e. don't just trust network input (esp. from an untrusted source) to be well-formed. Of special importance to the

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-01 Thread Steven M. Bellovin
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Crispin Cowan writes: Unfortunately, this safety feature is nearly useless, because if you take an infected whatever.doc file, and just *rename* it to whatever.rtf and send it, then MS Word will cheerfully open the file for you when you double click on the

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-01 Thread John Steven
I'm not sure there's any value in discussing this minutia further, but here goes: 1) Crispin, I think you've nailed one thing. The continuum from: Architecture -- Design -- Low-level Design -- (to) Implementation is a blurry one, and certainly slippery as you move from 'left' to 'right'. But,

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-01 Thread Crispin Cowan
John Steven wrote: I'm not sure there's any value in discussing this minutia further, but here goes: We'll let the moderator decide that :) 1) Crispin, I think you've nailed one thing. The continuum from: Architecture -- Design -- Low-level Design -- (to) Implementation is a blurry

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-01 Thread Gunnar Peterson
Hi John, Which of the following more aptly characterizes the problem?: IMPL. BUG: Insufficient security-constraint existed on the admin Servlet in the app's deployment descriptor. ARCH. FLAW: No fa├žade component gated privileged functionality -alternatively- ARCH. FLAW: Privileged

[SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-01-30 Thread Gary McGraw
Hi all, If the WMF vulnerability teaches us anything, it teaches us that we need to pay more attention to flaws. We spend lots of time talking about bugs in software security (witness the perpetual flogging of the buffer overflow), but architectural problems are just as important and deserve