After attending the London Web Performance Testing Group on Wednesday evening, I went along to the London Android Group (londroid) at Skills Matter.

Mixing Native and Web Technologies, Oh My included three presentations/demonstrations. Great stuff.

Dave Springgay spoke about his experiences at News International developing highly crafted news apps which provide high quality and high performance on native mobile operating systems. He explained their use of HTML5, Android WebView and Java bridging to use JavaScript to inject content (mainly JSON) directly into pre-built HTML templates which are customised for each device, and which can be updated without re-deploying the app.

Jonathan Anthony provided an overview of the advantages of building mobile applications as webapps, using PhoneGap, using Titanium, and finally as native apps. He explained the latter of course give the best performance, better graphics and access to all the hardware APIs (with geo-location and camera being the most popular) along with the ability to have an icon on the desktop, but come at a cost due to the higher rates for developers, and the need to develop for at least two operating systems (i.e Android and the other one). He thought that for many apps, a webapp should be considered, due to speed of development and the cross-platform capability making them perhaps a quarter of the price.

Finally, Doug Chisholm and Clinton Smith described the capabilities of appsplash to develop cross-platform applications using their custom development platform.

So that's the technologies presented, but jQuery Mobile and jQTouch were also mentioned. Plenty to keep tabs on.

Gartner published its report Magic Quadrant for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) at the end of December.

The report is currently available to download free of charge if you register on Veracode's website. But it looks like if your turnover is less than $500 million, or say it is, the sales folk may be less likely to bother you.

The report is a useful summary, but I don't think it does enough to highlight the need for DAST to be just one part of a mix of activities contributing to a secure software development lifecycle, and therefore more secure applications. There's plenty of activity out there combining developer training, secure coding guidelines, vulnerability management, web application firewall dynamic patching and static analysis techniques too.

Happy new year. Planning your diary already? Looking for the best European conference for information about application security?

Europe's premier application security conference, AppSec EU, is being held in Athens, Greece, from 10th to 13th July 2012. As in Stockholm two years ago, this event has a research theme, but there will be plenty of practical information, advice and application security training.

In May I participated in the OWASP Greece chapter Training Day in Athens and was overwhelmed by the level of attendance from the enthusiastic and knowledgeable development community. I am sure the sponsorship opportunities and tickets will be snapped up quickly.

AppSec EU Research 2012 is being hosted by the Department of Informatics and Telecommunications of the University of Athens.

Another report from the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) highlights deficiencies in the maritime sector.

The study's report Cyber Security Aspects in the Maritime Sector discusses that while there is increasing knowledge concerning physical security and crew safety, maritime cyber security awareness is low to non-existent. The situation is made worse by fragmented responsibilities, lack of incident information, and missing legislation in this area.

A relatively quick read if you are active in the sector.

Further to my previous notes about HTML 5 security, a superb reference document was published earlier this month.

Michael Schmidt (Compass Security) wrote his master's thesis about HTML5 security in May 2011 and has published an extract for everyone to access.

HTML5 Web Security describes issues, vulnerabilities, threat & attack scenarios and countermeasures across 80 pages including numerous well thought-out diagrams, and is backed up with detailed references and an appendix full of attack details.

The main sections are:

• 2.2 Cross-origin resource sharing
• 2.3 Web storage
• 2.4 Offline web application
• 2.5 Web messaging
• 2.6 Custom scheme and content handlers
• 2.7 Web sockets API
• 2.8 Geolocation API
• 2.9 Implicit relevant features of HTML5
  Web workers, new elements, attributes and CSS, Iframe sandboxing and server-sent events

If you are already developing HTML, or planning to, read this document as soon as possible and update your requirements documents, specifications, design documents, coding standards, and test plans to incorporate the knowledge.

The document would be worth buying if it were a book, but it has generously been made available publicly. Yes, I am still reading the document, and so far have only one very minor complaint — it would be good to have a content list. Maybe in version 1.1?

This week, the Cloud Security Alliance has announced its new repository of security control self -assessments for cloud computing providers.

The CSA Security, Trust and Assurance Registry (STAR) lists providers who have completed and submitted a Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) or Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) response to indicate their compliance with CSA best practices.

Currently only two providers are listed, but more are in progress. This will be a very helpful resource for those seeking assurance about controls from suppliers, and potentially standardise the way cloud providers publish information about their security practices, simplifying procurement processes. If you are an IaaS, PaaS or SaaS provider, the existing submissions may help your own controls development or completion of an assessment.

There is more information in the detailed FAQ and LinkedIn forum.

Last week the UK government's Cabinet Office published its new cyber security strategy.

The Cyber Security Strategy describes the government's commitment to this "tier 1" risk. In the objective to make the UK "more resilient to cyber attacks and better able to protect our interests in cyber space", I hope the "risk-based approach..." "...working in partnership" which includes "raising business awareness" includes helping organisations of all sorts acquire and develop software which is secure and fit-for-purpose.

In particular, I hope the Cyber Security Hub will be able to promote secure software development lifecycles.

OWASP has announced a new addition to the immensely helpful cheat sheet series.

This first version of the HTML Security Cheat Sheet includes guidance on:

• Cross Origin Resource Sharing
• Local Storage (a.k.a. Offline Storage, Web Storage)
• WebDatabase
• Web Workers
• WebSockets
• Geolocation
• Use the sandbox attribute of an iframe for untrusted content
• Web Messaging
• XHR and DOM abuses
• HTML5 Widgets
• Progressive Enhancements and Graceful Degradation Risks

If you have anything to add, or suggest, please contact the people involved — Mark Roxbury, Krzysztof Kotowicz, Will Stranathan and Shreeraj Shah are the authors and primary editors.

For something in more depth, go to html5security and the related html5sec for an encyclopaedic reference source.

There is another more general presentation about using HTML5 WebSockets at London Web on Thursday evening this week (20th October), but be quick to register as there are already 175 people attending, and currently only 4 spaces left.

Undertaking training for developers and documenting secure coding guidelines are two of the earliest activities that should be undertaken in software security initiatives.

It is good to see Mozilla has published its WebAppSec Secure Coding Guidelines.

These show that secure coding guidelines neither need to be long nor overly complex. And yes they have to be tailored to your own development practices and risks. Read, re-use and reinvent.

Building Security In Maturity Model (BSIMM) version 3 (BSIMM3) was released on Tuesday by Cigital and Fortify.

Building Security In Maturity Model is an analysis of the results from a detailed surveying process about how companies build security into their software development processes. Its aim is to help all organisations understand, assess and plan software security initiatives. The findings identified are grouped into 12 practices across four domains called governance, intelligence, SSDL touchpoints and deployment in what is called the Software Security Framework. In these practices, a total of 109 activities are defined, spread across three tiers of complexity (levels 1 to 3) to give the appearance of a maturity model.

BSIMM3 includes data from 42 software security initiatives — 12 more than in BSIMM2. Although the data is primarily collected from organisations in the financial services, independent software vendor and technology sectors, other sectors are represented too. Many of the programmes are large, with the average number of developers being over 5,000 — but it ranges from just 10 to 30,000. No organisation survey does all 109 activities.

With the increase in source data, there has not been any significant change the the general findings, and the structure of domains, practices and activities has virtually not changed at all. The descriptions for most of the activities have been extended to clarify the meaning and provide further examples; in a small number of cases minor corrections have been made. But the total number of activities in unchanged, and their titles are the same. The following activities have been demoted from level 2 to level 1:

• Strategy & Metrics (SM) 2.4 "Require security sign-off" is now SM 1.6
• Attack Models (AM) 2.3 "Gather attack intelligence" is now AM 1.5
• Security Testing (ST) 2.2 "Allow declarative security/security features to drive tests" is now ST 1.3
• Penetration testing (PT) 2.1 "Use pen testing tools internally" is now PT 1.3

One activity has been promoted from level 1 to level 2:

• SM 1.5 "Identify metrics and drive initiative budgets with them" is now SM 2.5

So, previous scoring under BSIMM2 will need to be re-calculated, but there is a one-to-one mapping, and the numbering of all other activities remains unchanged.

The new scorecard presentation format demonstrate how to do a comparison of your own initiatives at a glance, and since some of the data sources have now been assessed more than once, BSIMM3 provides some comparison of changes over time.

So, some useful information for organisation wanting to assess and build out software security initiatives. Also take a look at Building Security In, Microsoft SDL, Open SAMM.