Re: [SC-L] Building Security In vs Auditing
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. ___
Re: [SC-L] Building Security In vs Auditing
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? The reason why I ask this question is that in our culture if I have a sense something is wrong, it usually isn't that difficult to find metrics as to why it is bad and therefore may have the perception of crying wolf as there are lots of bad things in all IT systems. Sometimes, going from good to great is a better approach than fixing bad and going to good. 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 (other than an opportunity to be smoozed regarding subsequent engagements and reused powerpoints and collateral from other gigs)? What would it take to get some industry analyst coverage in this space? Lots of folks may be of the belief that it is a waste of time bothering but I would love to at least know if any of the firms here have at least made the effort. -Original Message- From: Gary McGraw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:35 PM To: McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT); sc-l@securecoding.org Subject: RE: [SC-L] Building Security In vs Auditing Hi all, Very good questions. I think a service like the one you describe would be useful mostly as a way of identifying the depth of the problem. Simply wielding a tool as a consultant does nothing to train the guys creating bugs not to do so in the future...and so the market will correct that over time in an efficient way. But the fact remains that many potential customers and users of static analysis tools have no idea how much of a mess they have. An outsourcing approach could help with that. They'll find out they need em. I believe so strongly in the do anything to get started thing that I also endorse the use of (really amazingly silly) application security testing tools. I call these badnessometers (see chapter 1 of software security...and ken's slides for that matter). But knowing that your web code sucks is better than remaining completely clueless. In the end, tool integration *into dev* is the key to success with static analysis. Many of our customers are having huge enterprise-wide success because they are learning to use, feed, tune, and train dev about these tools. The best are recycling the things they learn about their code back into training (and into better rules to enforce). gem company www.cigital.com podcast www.cigital.com/silverbullet book www.swsec.com. * This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies. * ___ 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. ___
Re: [SC-L] Building Security In vs Auditing
At 9:46 AM -0500 1/2/07, McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) wrote: I read a recent press release in which a security vendor (names removed to both protect the innocent along with the fact that it doesn't matter for this discussion ) partnered with a prominent outsourcing firm. The press release was carefully worded but if you read into what wasn't said, it was in my opinion encouraging something that folks here tend to fight against. The outsourcing firm would use this tool in an auditing capacity for whatever client asked for another service but it would not become part of the general software development lifecycle for all projects. - It didn't mention any notion of all developers within the outsourcing firm having tools on their desktop to audit as they develop From the information supplied, it is not clear that the tool is something appropriate for the development environment. I develop a tool that could be used in a (certain) development environment, but that would only tell how the development environment was secured, having no effect on the degree to which the outsourced code was secure. - It didn't mention any notion of training all developers within the outsourcing firm on secure coding practices From the information supplied, it is not clear that the security vendor is one that would be involved in training anyone. Limitations on a joint press release (one that names another company) are subject to severe negotiations. Even if the security firm _was_ going to do what you suggest, I can see a PR flack at the outsourcing firm resisting any public suggestion that any of their staff needed further training on any aspect of data processing. -- Larry Kilgallen ___ 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. ___
