RE: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls)

["Kit Wetzler" <Kit.Wetzler () citrix com>]

https://www.icsalabs.com/icsa/docs/html/communities/services/Lab_Reports/Citrix_Teros100_Certification_Final_0003.pdf

Here is our certification report.  Hope that helps! 


Kit Wetzler
Sr. Product Manager, Application Firewall
Application Networking Group
 
Citrix Systems, Inc
V: 408.850.0877
M: 408.660.7536
F: 408.850.0899
kit.wetzler () citrix com

-----Original Message-----
From: Dinis Cruz [mailto:dinis () ddplus net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:58 PM
To: owasp-dotnet () lists sourceforge net; owasp-london () lists sourceforge net; webappsec () securityfocus com
Cc: Patrick Wolf; websecurity () webappsec org
Subject: Re: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls)

The ICSA reports seem to be quite interesting (thank Patrick for the link)

What about the other WAF vendors and Web Application Scanners?

Have they done similar certification?

If so can we have the links to the reports please? (I had a quick look on the ICSALabs.com website and couldn't find 
the link to other WAF tests (even TrafficShield's report doesn't seem to be publicly linked
http://www.google.com/custom?q=TrafficShield&sa=Google+Search&domains=icsalabs.com&sitesearch=icsalabs.com) 


Dinis Cruz
Owasp .Net Project
www.owasp.net

Patrick Wolf wrote:
> Regarding independent security verifications of the products themselves, several WAF vendors created an ICSA Premier 
> Services certification for WAF to specifically answer this question. Part of this certification was a full audit of 
> the management console as well.
>
> Here is the lab report for F5's TrafficShield:
>
> https://www.icsalabs.com/icsa/docs/html/communities/services/Lab_Repor
> ts/F5_Certification_Final_Report.PDF
>
> F5 also contracted Aspect Security last year to test the security provided by TrafficShield vis-à-vis the OWASP Top 
> Ten. That report can be found here:
>
> http://www.f5.com/reports/Aspect_F5_TrafficShield_Summary_Report.pdf
>
> I should also point out that it is our standard QA practice to test our UI with an application scanner.
>
>
> Patrick Wolf  |  Product Manager             
> F5 Networks www.f5.com   
> P 408-273-4859  D 206.272.5556    
> D 408-273-4859  M 408-390-9400   
>             
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Bill McGee (bam) [mailto:bam () cisco com]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:56 AM
> To: MindsX; Dinis Cruz
> Cc: owasp-dotnet () lists sourceforge net; 
> owasp-london () lists sourceforge net; webappsec () securityfocus com; 
> websecurity () webappsec org
> Subject: RE: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London 
> Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application Firewalls)
>
> The trick, of course, is that standards in this area are just starting to emerge. So who do you get to do the 
> verification? There is no EAL equivalent for this space, #)3 people will always be able to find someone like Tolley 
> Group to provide whatever verification you want if the fee is right.
>
> We *really* need a standards body to step up and establish/conduct a soup-to-nuts verification plan. An 
> interoperability test would also be nice...
>
> That's MY .02...
>
> -bill
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   MindsX [mailto:mindsx () gmail com]
> Sent:   Mon May 01 06:18:29 2006
> To:     Dinis Cruz
> Cc:     owasp-dotnet () lists sourceforge net; owasp-london () lists sourceforge net; webappsec () securityfocus com; 
> websecurity () webappsec org
> Subject:        [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] Review of Owasp-London Chapter meeting on WAF (Web Application 
> Firewalls)
>
> My $0.02... [I seem to be giving alot away recently]....
>
> 5    c) Where are the published independent security reviews of these
> products? I find amazing that vendors that are selling a 'security 
> product', e.g. a software application (WAF) that protects other 
> software applications (Websites), do not understand the value of 
> hiring independent 3rd party security companies to perform source code 
> security audits to their products (note that the final results of 
> these audits must be published and made available to clients). As 
> discussed during the panel,
>
>   
> > it is probably impossible to create bug/vulnerability free 
> > applications, <
> >     
>
> but to NOT perform independent security audits to their code is crazy. 
> Since these vendors are still in the 'Functionality Arms Race' phase 
> of their products. Basically, the development teams are more focused 
> on features, performance and user experience than on Security (and I 
> don't have to tell you how 'secure' apps developed like this tend to 
> be :). Maybe the solution is to put a WAF protecting a WAF protecting 
> a WAF protecting a website :). Note to vendors: If am am wrong in this 
> comment, feel free to prove me wrong and publish the security audits 
> performed on your current product(s).
>
>
> I'm sure that some of the more experienced coders on the planet will 
> disagree with the above...
>
> No mention of the fact that one vendor outright _refused_ to admit 
> that web applications can be made secure - by that I do not mean the 
> underlying code processors, but more the functionality / logic 
> enforcement and input validation....
>
> Nor the fact that they was a hard squeeze on the fact that the same vendors'
> appliance has known bugs....
>
> Hmm... Secure your network by adding more bugs..... or are customers 
> supposed to purchase an extra WAF from a different vendor to protect 
> the original WAF's interface ? anyways...
>
>
> Moreover - how many of the above build upon open-source with out 
> fulfilling the requirements of the relative license? [apparently F5 
> are in the clear... or so they say...]
>
> Think the EFF should engage....
>
> MindsX
>
> - Sponsored Advertisement 
> --------------------------------------------------
> The Software Security Summit is the only event that addresses security 
> issues at the application development level. Join us Jun 5-7, Baltimore, MD.
> http://www.s-3con.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> The Web Security Mailing List
> http://www.webappsec.org/lists/websecurity/
>
> The Web Security Mailing List Archives 
> http://www.webappsec.org/lists/websecurity/archive/
>
>
>   



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: Watchfire

The Twelve Most Common Application-level Hack Attacks Hackers continue to add billions to the cost of doing business 
online despite security executives' efforts to prevent malicious attacks. This whitepaper identifies the most common 
methods of attacks that we have seen, and outlines a guideline for developing secure web applications. 
Download this whitepaper today!

https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx?id=701300000007t9r
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: Watchfire

Methodologies & Tools for Web Application Security Assessment
With the rapid rise in the number and types of security threats, web
application security assessments should be considered a crucial phase in
the development of any web application. What methodology should be
followed? What tools can accelerate the assessment process?
Download this whitepaper today!

https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx?id=701300000007t9h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------