Secure Coding mailing list archives

Re: informIT: software security zombies


From: Gary McGraw <gem () cigital com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:40:26 -0400

hi kevin,

I completely agree that bugs and flaws exist as two categories (with a
slippery slope between them) outside of security.  It is important that we
focus on both kinds of defect since the narrative in software security has
mostly been about the bug parade. (See Getting Past the Bug Parade
<http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1248057> (September 17,
2008)).  

In my experience, there seem to be three kinds of categories that flaws
tend to clump into:
* flaws on "the list" (see STRIDE...or your own list of historical flaws)
ex. attacker-in-the-middle attacks
* ambiguities in the specs (here I agree with your assessment of #2)...I
think that errors of omission go here FWIW
* problems with dependencies (lots more of these in Framework-land than
there used to be)

Requirements would be nice.  Sadly, not enough software products actually
use requirements even though the people in Pittsburgh would like us to
pretend that they do.  (Your mileage may vary, etc.)

gem

On 7/21/11 10:40 AM, "Wall, Kevin" <Kevin.Wall () qwest com> wrote:

Gary McCraw wrote:
This month's informIT article covers the zombies:
[snip]
* Software security defects come in two main flavorsā€¹bugs at the
implementation level (code) and flaws at the architectural level (design)

So, two questions:
1) How is this (software *security* defects) different than any other
software defect?
   It seems to me that these are also 2 main categories of software
defects in general.

2) In terms of "flavors", where do you see software security defects
arising from either incorrect
   requirements or simply lack of specifications?

My experience with #2 is that poor specifications are a major contributor
to software
security defects, more so even than with software defects in general.
That's because generally
these specs are usually considered "non-functional requirements" and they
get missed
more by systems analysts simply because they are not something that the
business
wants and therefore they aren't put into the reqts and thus never get
built.

I'm not talking about the pseudo-PCI-like requirements that says things
like making
sure that you have no OWASP Top Ten vulnerabilities, but rather actual
omission
of requirements such as failure to specify that data must be kept
confidential,
or to access this data requires authorization by a certain role, or that
an audit
trail must be required for certain actions, etc.

I don't see how you can chalk these sorts of defects up to flaws at the
architecture level (unless you and I have drastically different views of
system architecture). The are outright omissions in the specifications
and because they are not there, the application team never even thinks
about building in that functionality.  Bottom line: I think you are
missing
a "flavor".

Thanks,
-kevin
--
Kevin W. Wall   614.215.4788   Qwest Risk Management / Information
Security Team
Blog: http://off-the-wall-security.blogspot.com/
"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We *cause* accidents."        -- Nathaniel Borenstein, co-creator of MIME


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential
or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.


_______________________________________________
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.
Follow KRvW Associates on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/KRvW_Associates
_______________________________________________


Current thread: