01 February 2012

Development

Posts relating to the category tag "development" are listed below.

01 February 2012

Web Application Exposed Surface

The exposed surface of an application is often called its "attack surface" or "defensive perimeter". I prefer "exposed surface" since the term is a little less judgemental and I think better implies why we need to be careful about it.

Remember that many security weaknesses come about due to unexpected functionality existing, as well as implementation and design flaws. The number of weaknesses is generally proportional to complexity, often measured as lines of code, or in the context of this discussion, this is often proportional to the amount of exposed surface. The exposed surface of a web application would be all the addresses (URLs), methods (e.g. POST, GET, HEAD) and parameters (form, query string, URL path, cookie and other headers) which the application responds to. Quite often this normally means every possible path and combination of parameters you can throw at it, even if the results is just a "not found" error message.

I was reminded to write about this topic, after reading Essential Attack Surface Management recently on Jim Bird's Building Real Software blog. I like his suggested approach of, well at least making a start, even if it is to focus only on the higher risk areas. Things like search engine friendly paths, dynamic URLs and URL rewriting will cause difficulties, but these are not insurmountable, especially if the site's path naming system can be considered, analysed and defined early in the development process. You might also want to focus on the authenticated parts of the application first.

If you can reduce the exposed surface, or even better limit it to only the necessary entry points, this is a huge step forward in defending your application. Your web application will be a combination of the necessary functionality for your business processes, combined with extra functionality (intended or otherwise), but it also needs to be able to handle other types of request gracefully (e.g. site icon, robots.txt file, missing page tests).

Venn diagram showing how authorised business functionality is a subset of the actual available functionality. There are also some other aspects that are necessary to handle gracefully.

The types of things which are commonly exposed, but should not be are:

  • Templates, used by other scripts
  • Included code, such as modules and libraries, never meant to be an entry point
  • Entry points meant for users with a different role or permissions (e.g. system initiated web services, customer-only content)
  • Unused, but included, functionality.

The exposed surface might also include the following things, but should really never exist in web-accessible locations:

  • Administrative interfaces
  • Logs
  • Temporary files
  • Configuration files such as encryption keys (yes really), and database connection strings
  • Backups
  • Default installation files, including help documentation
  • Old and archived scripts, test versions of a site, and other unused content.

Some entry points may only be meant for different groups of authenticated users, although there may be some overlap with unauthenticated public users. Every application will be different, but the following attempt to illustrate this for a public website with some functionality used exclusively by authenticated customers.

Venn diagram showing how public unauthenticated users should have access to a more reduced exposed surface Venn diagram showing how authenticated customers should have access to a different exposed surface

There are choices on where you enforce limitations on the inbound exposed surface. Some typical places are:

  • Network firewall
  • Traffic management device
  • Web application firewall (WAF), guard or other type of filter
  • HTTP proxy server
  • Web server
  • Application code.

No one of these is the best answer, and in many cases it is better to use a combination of more than one. For example on a web-based content management system, you might use a firewall to limit access from only known office IP addresses, use a web application firewall to limit requests to only well-formed HTTP requests and for known URLs and parameters, use the web server or proxy server to enforce the use of TLS, and let the application enforce the parameter type and range checks, before any business layer authorisation checks and input data validation occurs. The decisions might be different here if requests from internal users do not pass through all the same network devices.

You might even enforce the same restriction in more than one place. For example, you may only open port 443 through a network firewall, as well as having the web server listening solely on port 443, and also the application checking TLS is in use and setting the Secure flag on the session cookie.

But do remember, your web applications will probably also receive requests for entry point URLs that are not on your list, and which are not necessarily malicious, you may have forgotten to take into account, or include unexpected extra or missing parameters. You may want to ensure the web application responds in the correct manner for your own context and user base. Just blocking everything else may not be the correct option.

If you are in a situation of being unable to determine the exposed surface, there are approaches to use application profiling to create a good estimate. At its simplest this may be undertaking a web site crawl, but there has been some work in the area of using web application firewalls to build up a model of the site from actual usage. There is some good information on using ModSecurity for this, and I will try to summarise the information sources in a later post.

Another approach is to fingerprint the page content and monitor for changes such as defacement and cross-site scripting injection. Again, I will look out some references I have for this.

Posted on: 01 February 2012 at 12:31 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

20 January 2012

London Android Group

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

Photograph of attendees at the London Android User Group meeting 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.

Posted on: 20 January 2012 at 07:30 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

06 January 2012

State of Software Security Report Volume 4

Veracode has previously published significant data about software security in volumes 1, 2 and 3 of their State of Software Security Report.

Cover page from Volume 4 of Veracode's State of Software Security Report - The Intractable Problem of Insecure Software

In Volume 4 of State of Software Security Report additional analysis has been possible due to the larger data set available. In this volume emphasis is given to the analysis of the (primarily US?) governmental sector, as well as more data on the effect of developer training and education on software security. On this Veracode report that a "high level of application security knowledge also delivered higher security quality applications". That's encouraging since developer training is one of the first areas where effort should be expended in creating a secure software development lifecycle programme.

On of the other interesting conclusions was the potential fast turnaround for remediation and re-testing to solve problems suggesting that "development agility and application security are not mutually exclusive".

Cross-site scripting continues to be the most prevalent vulnerability overall — there was an interesting discussion last week about what this means in terms of business impact on the Web Application Security - From the Start blog.

Volume 4 also includes some initial results on static code analysis of Android applications. If you are developing mobile applications, do read the OWASP Mobile Security Project's Top 10 Mobile Controls and Design Principles.

Posted on: 06 January 2012 at 21:17 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

03 January 2012

AppSec EU 2012 To Be Held in Athens

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

Photograph of a public display board beneath a sign saying 'Information' - the web browser on screen is displaying a Firefox error message because it cannot connect to the requested information resource address

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.

Posted on: 03 January 2012 at 08:15 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

27 December 2011

Guide to HTML5 Web Security

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

An extract from a page in Michael Schmidt's document HTML5 Web Security showing how HTML5 vulnerabilities and attacks are described and illustrated in diagrammatic form

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?

Posted on: 27 December 2011 at 09:07 hrs

Comments Comments (3) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

09 December 2011

News on XSS

A new edition of the OWASP Newsletter was published this week.

The December 2011 edition includes an excellent article by Gareth Heyes on protecting against cross-site scripting (XSS). He recommends a process of validating the type, whitelist checking, length validation, character restriction and context dependent output escaping, illustrating this with a number of detailed examples.

One to circulate to the development team.

Posted on: 09 December 2011 at 08:30 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

22 November 2011

The Effect of Development Tools on Security

In a comment about my previous post, Andre Gironda recommended another paper, this time from researchers in the Computer Science Division at UC Berkeley.

Charts from the paper 'Exploring the Relationship Between Web Application Development Tools and Security' by Matthew Finifter and David Wagner

Matthew Finifter and David Wagner's paper Exploring the Relationship Between Web Application Development Tools and Security describes an analysis of vulnerabilities in nine implementations of the same web application, developed by professional programmers.

The authors are at pains to highlight possible and actual uncertainties in their analysis which is quite limited in scope, but they have derived a very useful methodology for comparing applications developed in different languages and frameworks. Their findings with greatest confidence were:

  • There is no relationship between choice of programming language and application security.
  • automatic (built-in) framework protection measures are effective at precluding vulnerabilities, whilst manual (optional) ones provide little value.
  • Manual source code review is more effective at finding vulnerabilities than automated dynamic (penetration) testing.

But do read the paper in full, and consider how the results might be used to improve your own secure software development lifecycles.

Although the authors discuss related work in this area, I would like to see more comparable data, but suspect that obtaining unbiased test applications may be difficult.

Posted on: 22 November 2011 at 21:02 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

08 November 2011

SDL Talk Wall

Tired of digging through page after page of links to find knowledge about a work-related subject? Making information security guidance accessible is a challenge too.

Screen capture from Microsoft's SDL Talk Wall

Microsoft has announced a new SDL Industry Talk Wall on the Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) website. It is a live view of news, resources and answers to common questions around SDL, created using HTML5, with the ability to filter by return on investment, progress of the SDL itself, tools, cloud-related aspects and events.

This is a great way to promote secure software development lifecycle processes, and encourages people to browse through the latest information. I wish I had thought of doing this before.

Posted on: 08 November 2011 at 18:32 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

28 October 2011

Web Application Security for Auditors

COBIT defines a range of domains, processes and control objectives relevant to to secure software development lifecycle. ISACA has now published a white paper on web application security risks.

Partial view of the title sheet from ISACA's white paper 'Web Application Security - Business Risk Decisions' published in October 2011

Web Application Security - Business Risk Decisions provides an introduction to the security issues relating to web applications and discusses the risks and common security weaknesses. It references other projects and resources that are relevant to web application security.

The paper recommends a systems-based approach which will be familiar to adopters of COBIT and similar frameworks. It emphasises the governance aspects, especially the need for enterprise support. The paper recommends a programme to drive security throughout the SDLC to include:

  • Business/executive support
  • Training
  • Supply chain
  • Policies and standards
  • Technical controls
  • Ongoing programme of scanning/code review
  • Legacy code
  • Project management
  • Effective incident response capabilities

The approach is welcome. IT Auditors can be your friends! It will be interesting to see if this develops into a more formal initiative by ISACA.

Posted on: 28 October 2011 at 09:09 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

18 October 2011

HTML5 Security

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.

Posted on: 18 October 2011 at 13:30 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

More Entries

Development : Web Security, Usability and Design
http://www.clerkendweller.com/development
ISO/IEC 18004:2006 QR code for http://clerkendweller.com

Page http://www.clerkendweller.com/development
Requested by 38.107.179.224 on Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 21:27 hrs (London date/time)

Please read our terms of use and obtain professional advice before undertaking any actions based on the opinions, suggestions and generic guidance presented here. Your organisation's situation will be unique and all practices and controls need to be assessed with consideration of your own business context.

Terms of use http://www.clerkendweller.com/page/terms
Privacy statement http://www.clerkendweller.com/page/privacy
© 2008-2012 clerkendweller.com