OWASP AppSec Europe

May 2006

Bootstrapping the Application Assurance Process

Sebastien Deleersnyder Belgium OWASP Chapter Leader Ascure

[email protected]

Copyright © 2006 - The OWASP Foundation Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

The OWASP Foundation

http://www.owasp.org/

Sebastien Deleersnyder?

 5 years of Developer Experience  5 years of Information Security Experience  Principal Application Security Consultant @ Ascure:  Web Application/Services Security Testing  Training Web Application/Services Security  Initiating & Improving Application Security Assurance  Belgian OWASP Chapter Leader

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 2

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance?

 Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 3

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance?

 Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 4

Application Security Problem

 Business demands more:  automation  availability  adaptability  Growing connectivity / user base  Increasing complexity of software  Rush software out without adequate security testing  Poor security training and awareness 75% of vulnerabilities are application related (Gartner + NIST-ICAT)

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 5

Cost of Insecure Software

 More maintenance (updates, patches)  Lost:  Money  Productivity  Information  Image, reputation

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 6

The Solution Application Security Assurance

Understand and manage your software security risk

Network Software STOP Data

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 7

Application Security Assurance

Combination of

People, Processes,

and Technology to identify, measure, and manage

Risk

presented by COTS (*) , open source, and custom applications.

(*) Commercial Of The Shelf

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 8

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  People  Processes  Technology  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 9

People



Awareness decision makers

 Board of Directors  Audit and Assurance (Risk Management)  CEO/CFO/CIO  Executive(s) responsible for systems development and change management  Sales & Product Management!

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 10

People

 Teach your developers to “fish”: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Chinese proverb  Meaning:    Developer awareness Secure design guidelines Secure implementation practices

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 11

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  People  Processes  Technology  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 12

Processes

 Build security into  Development process  Deployment process

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 13

“Integrate” Security within Application Life Cycle Security Requirements / Abuse Cases Threat Modeling / Secure Design Code Review Risk Based Security Testing Secure Config / CM / App FWs Requirements Use Cases Design Code Test Deploy OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 14

Security Requirements / Abuse Cases



Define “Secure” & “Reliable”



Use <-> Abuse Cases

 UML based  Better understanding 

Foundation rest AppSec controls

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 15

Abuse Cases

Source: Templates for Misuse Case Description, Sindre & Opdahl

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 16

Threat Modeling

 Select mitigation Strategy & Techniques based on identified, documented and rated threats.

 Benefits:  Prevent security design flaws  Identify & address greatest risks  Increased risk awareness and understanding  Mechanism for reaching consensus  Cost justification and support for needed controls  Means for communicating results

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 17

Secure Design

  Principles (*)           Secure the weakest link Practice defence in depth Fail securely Follow the principle of least privilege Compartmentalize Keep it simple Promote privacy Remember that hiding secrets is hard Be reluctant to trust Use your community resources Future proof security design!

(*) Building Secure Software, Viega-McGraw

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 18

Code Review

 Security bugs subset of implementation bugs!

 Static / dynamic analysis tools  Requires manual inspection  Threat-based  Benefits:  Improves code quality  Prevents security bugs  Increased developer awareness and understanding

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 19

Application Security Testing

 Focus on application vulnerabilities  Tools can do the automated work  Experienced Testers  Black / White Box security testing

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 20

Deployment Process

 Ensure the application configuration is secure  Security is increasingly “data-driven”  XML files, property files, scripts, databases, directories  How do you control and audit this data?

 Design configuration data for audit  Put all configuration data in CM  Audit configuration data regularly  Don’t allow configuration changes in the field  Gap Development - Deployment

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 21

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  People  Processes  Technology  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 22

Technology

 Do not develop on islands, but look for company wide:  Frameworks J2EE, .NET

 Web Services: new ballgame or same thing?

 Leverage PKI, IAM initiatives  Vulnerability Scanners  Application level firewalls

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 23

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 24

Risk Management

 Risk Management  “Looking both ways before crossing the road”  Risk  “The possibility of suffering harm or loss”  Management  “The act or art of managing; the manner of treating, directing, carrying on, or using, for a purpose”

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 25

Risk Management?

The process concerned with

identification, measurement, control and minimization

of security risks in information systems to a level commensurate with the value of the assets protected.

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 26

Risk Management

 Deeply influenced by business objectives  Each business has different risk profile  Risk changes over time

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 27

The foundation of security

 Risk is the combination of a threat exploiting some vulnerability that could cause harm to some asset.

Vulnerability

Threat Risk

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 28

Handling Risks

 Methods of risk treatment:  Mitigate or suppress  Accept  Transfer (insurance)  Ignore (poor – often used)  Types of countermeasures  Preventive  Detective  Corrective  In case of risk acceptance  Request documented justification  Get formal approbation (sign-off) by senior management  Have the decision reviewed after 6 to 12 months

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 29

Residual Risk



Residual Risk

is a combined function of  (1) a

threat safeguards

; less the effect of some

threat reducing

 (2) a

vulnerability

less the effect of some

vulnerability reducing safeguards

and  (3) an

asset safeguards

.

less the effect of some

asset value reducing OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 30

Risk Analysis – Thread Modeling



Company Level - Risk Analysis:

 Perform Business Risk Analysis  Identify Critical Business Applications  Focus on Business Risks  Ownership?



Application Level -Threat Modeling:

 What are the real threats against the application?

 Focus on Technical Threats

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 31

Success Factors

 Obtain management support  Involve Business and Technical experts  Designate focal points  Define procedures  Document and maintain result

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 32

Results

 Assurance that greatest risks have been identified and addressed  Increased awareness and understanding of the risks  Mechanism for reaching consensus  Cost justification and support for needed controls  Means for communicating results  Compliancy & Audit reporting

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 33

Cost vs. Security

Cost Maximum allowable cost Sub-optimal Security Spending Targeted balance Maximum viable security Security “Maximum allowable cost” is found through Risk Management.

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 34

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 35

How to Start?

 No Big Bang approach  Trigger can be (bad) result of Web App Pen Test  First business case!

 Then Bootstrap!

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 36

Business Case

 For use throughout the lifecycle and the entire software portfolio:  Contracting Phase  Development Phase  Deployment/Production Phase  Audit Phase  Benefits:  Cost savings  Risk measurement and reduction  Compliance reporting

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 37

Cost Savings

 Significantly reduce the costs associated with new and deployed products :  A flaw that costs $1 to fix in the design and development phase will cost $100 to correct once it is deployed  Reduce development time and number of cycles  Patch management costs  Contractor and vendor costs “Removing only 50 percent of software vulnerabilities before use will reduce patch management and incident response costs by 75 percent.” (John Pescatore, Gartner)

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 38

Risk measurement and reduction

 Eliminate vulnerabilities before they become liabilities  Manage the risks of serious financial loss, negative publicity, legal liability, loss of contracts, erosion of market share, degraded performance or other serious business impact as a result of a failure in security  Set, enforce and report that software assurance thresholds are maintained  Measurable reports prove progress internally and for compliance

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 39

Compliance Reporting

 Compliance reporting:  Comply with legal and regulatory requirements  Regularly assess risk, disclose vulnerabilities and weaknesses, and prove progress both internally and for compliance requirements  Scope & application  Risk assessments are mandatory for most regulations, including application vulnerability detection  Example internal control frameworks: CobiT, ISO 17799  Example regulations: Basel II, FISMA (NIST 800-53), DoD 8500.2, Sarbanes-Oxley, FDA, HIPAA …

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 40

BootStrap!

 Identify current way of working!

 Set goals and start with phased approach  Compare this with security strategy (can already be set out in a secure development policy)  Perform a gap analysis and proceed with process improvement cycles:  Tailor to Company Culture!

 Driven by Risk Management!

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 41

Quality – Application Security Analogy

Quality Application Security ISO standards  Industry level OWASP guidelines / standards ?

Quality Assurance  Company level Application Security Assurance  Set up AppSec Assurance Framework for Development & Deployment Process Quality Control  Project level AppSec Controls  Part of development  and deployment of one application

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 42

Driver for Improvement Process

Risk Management Strategy Governance   Development Deployment    Accountability Organisation Reporting (develop metrics)

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 43

Company Wide

 Identify Business Critical High Risk projects to focus on.  E.g. through BIA  Focus on business risks!

 Must align Application Security Assurance with the company's "Risk Appetite"

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 44

Process Gateway Checks

 Introduce process gateway checks to be formally reported by project manager for project board sign-off (including residual risk!)  Introduce Application Security Controls in phased approach  Requirements phase is key for new projects:  Security specifics must be part of functional requirements (not bolted on later!)  Awareness for stake-holders / project sponsors!

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 45

“Natural” Allies

 QA:  Security vulnerabilities are to be considered bugs, the same way as a functional bug, and tracked in the same manner.

 PMO:  Factor some time into the project plan for security.

 Consider security as added value in an application.

– $1 spent up front saves $10 during development and $100 after release

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 46

Application Security Defect Tracking and Metrics

 “Every security flaw is a process problem”  Tracking security defects  Find the source of the problem  Bad or missed requirement, design flaw, poor implementation, etc…  ISSUE: can you track security defects the same way as other defects?

 Metrics  What lifecycle stage are most flaws originating in?

 What security mechanisms are we having trouble implementing?

 What security vulnerabilities are we having trouble avoiding?

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 47

Roles

 Role of security architect (cross-development projects):  ensure security goals are reached during all cycles of the development process  create awareness within development teams, business  bridge function to "IT Security"  mentor the security engineers and project leaders  Role of security engineer (part of project team)  SPOC within development team for all security related matters.

 Search for Champions!

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 48

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 49

Bootstrapping User Story – Mercator Insurances

 Triggered by application assessment on critical Web Applications  Tailored Best Practices to Mercator Development & Deployment Process  Interviews with key actors  Support by Mercator Security Architect  Included PMO  Workshops for developer awareness & involvement in AppSec Assurance process

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 50

Split Secure Development Guidelines

 Different involved people  Different environments

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 51

Added Security Checkpoints in phased approach OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 52

Lessons Learned

 Management support  Look for Quick Wins  Convince developers + other parties  Interviews  Awareness & empowerment through workshops  Include PMO  Provide PM checklist  Sign-off responsibility!

 Identify & leverage existing access control and authorization frameworks  Bridge gap development - deployment

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 53

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 54

Software Security Assurance in Outsourcing

 Define security requirements and priorities  Assign responsibility for identifying and remediation of coding flaws  Reserve the right to audit  Save money by ensuring that testing eliminates major security issues pre-deployment  Negotiate a more active contract with less time for rework needed at the end

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 55

Benefits for Outsourced development

 Cost savings:  No additional hours and fees to fix software  No lost revenue due to delay in deployment  Risk measurement and reduction:  Providers understand what’s expected  Enforce internal security policies regardless of code source  Reduce patch and fix cycle speeds deployment  Set security acceptance and release criteria  Compliance reporting  OWASP Legal Project?

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 56

Agenda

 Application Security Assurance  Risk Management  Bootstrap Application Security Assurance Cycle  User Story: Mercator Insurances  Outsourced Development  Roundup

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 57

Roundup

 Embed within complete approach:  Educate people  Add security best practices to processes  Tailor secure design guidelines to company culture  Leverage existing tools & practices  Risk Management is Key!

 Get Improvement Cycle going!

 Cultural changes  Bridge Building

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 58

Gartner 2006

(*)

:

Proper execution: improves application security, reduces overall costs, increases customer satisfaction and yields a more-efficient SDLC.

(*) Gartner Report - Integrate Security Best Practices and Tools Into Software Development Life Cycle

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 59

Thank You

 Sebastien Deleersnyder  [email protected]

OWASP AppSec Europe 2006 60