OWASP Code review V2 Project

Overview
Welcome to the continuation of OWASP Code Review Guide Project! The Code Review Guide Project 2.0 is to bring the successful OWASP Code Review Guide up to date.

Project Lead
[mailto:eoin.keary@owasp.org Eoin Keary] is continuing his successful leadership as the technical lead of the Code Review Guide Project.

[mailto:larry.conklin@owasp Larry Conklin] is the co-leader and project support person.

Email List
You can sign up for the OWASP Code Review Guide Project email list at General Code Review Guide mailing http://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-codereview http://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp_code_review_guide_authors

Table of Contents for Code Review Guide
Authors and Reviewers use to TOC to take ownership of content you want to write about or review. Please attach your name here and put link to your content here.

Link to TOC []

Content Template
General Template to be used by Code Review Guide Authors.

Section Title

 * Abstract
 * Description of the issue/control.

Anti-Pattern – How to identify vulnerable code

 * Typical API calls used
 * Vulnerable syntax
 * Java/.Net/imports generally found related to the issue.
 * Possible solutions.
 * Refer to the development guide.
 * Borrow from the Cheat sheet series/Don’t copy from the internet, original work only.

Working Notes For Authors

 * Work in the wiki
 * This shares your workings and progress with other authors who might wish to collaborate on the topic.


 * Don't wait until your writing is complete to add to the wiki
 * Feel free to put outlines, thoughts, rough passages, etc in the wiki as you go along, again this shows your working on the section and allows other authors (who might need to reference your section in the completed document) to know what you plan to cover.
 * Reach out to co-authors
 * If two or more authors have signed up for a particular section, those authors should contact each other to co-ordinate how the section should be written. (see e-mail addressed below).


 * Our Aim to have a full review draft of all sections by September 2013
 * Reviewing the document sections will take time, and this important task cannot be left until the last minute. If all sections are ready for review by September 14th then we will have around 2 months to perform reviews (and pick up any slack).

Writing Style/Notes
We are using the APA style of referencing our sources for the Code Review Guide V2. Please use this style when referencing any sources for your sections. Please see the References Pages in APA (http://www.apastyle.org/) Format page for examples and more information, and reach out to the (list) with any questions.
 * References

Try to reference other sections of the code review document first, else try to reference other parts of the OWASP web site/other projects. If your reference does not fit into the OWASP documentation, then refernence outside (internet) materials, being careful not to mention specific vendors/brands.

Code Review Guide Authors and Reviewers
Please do not email authors or reviewers on matters outside of the Code Review Guide project. Authors and reviewers have allowed us to publish their email address to help promote collaboration between authors and or reviewers.


 * '' Abbas Naderi: abiusx@owasp.org
 * '' amurren@gmail.com
 * '' Anand Prakash  anand.prakash2010@vit.ac.in
 * '' Andre Gironda andreg@gmail.com
 * '' Andreas Athanasoulias andreas.athanasoulias@gmail.com
 * '' Ashish Rao rao.ashish20@gmail.com
 * '' Avi Douglen douglen@hotmail.com
 * '' Azzeddine Ramrami: azzeddine.ramrami@owasp.org
 * '' azzeddine.famrami@owasp.org
 * '' basilio.osorio@stls.frb.org
 * '' Bob Wintemberg bob@wintembergs.net
 * '' Chris Berberich 
 * '' colin.watson@owasp.org
 * '' Gary David Robinson 
 * '' Greg Disney: gregory.disney@owasp.org
 * '' Hartl, Manuel 
 * '' James Widener james.widener@gmail.com
 * '' Jason Karlin 
 * '' johanna.curiel@owasp.org
 * '' magesh.mariappan@wipro.com
 * '' Manuel Hartl manuel.hartl@cgi.com
 * '' Mittal Mehta mittal28.mehta@gmail.com
 * '' Mghazli Zyad 
 * '' Mohammed Damavandi mdf092@gmail.com
 * '' Neil Matatall neil@matatall.com
 * '' nerpster@gmail.com
 * '' palakze@gmail.com
 * '' prathamesh.mhatre26@gmail.com
 * '' Renchie Joan Abraham: renchievava@yahoo.com
 * '' Said Moftakhar contact@saidmoftakhar.com
 * '' Shahryar Jahangir shahryar@aniza.com
 * '' Shenal Silva shenal.silva007@gmail.com
 * '' Sherif Koussa sherif.koussa@owasp.org
 * '' skwa@deloitte.com
 * '' Sravan Kumar sravanm219@gmail.com
 * '' Tjohnson@cbecompanies.com
 * '' Travis Risner travis.risner@owasp.org

May 17, 2013 at 6:00 AM CDT.
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/966924510 Meeting ID: 966-924-510

May 31, 2013 at 6:00 AM CDT.
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/515026118 Access Code: 966-924-510

Schedule meeting details
Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

United States: +1 (626) 521-0017 United States (toll-free): 1 877 309 2070 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

GoToMeeting® Online Meetings Made Easy®

Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your iPhone®, iPad® or Android® device via the GoToMeeting app.

March 8, 2013
Eoin audio was breaking up. Eoin mention having a working group email distro list for authors and reviewers.

Samantha sent out grant chat for review. Eoin is creating a template for Authors to us.

Friday, March 22, 13
Met with Johanna Curiel and Sherif Koussa. We met for a little under an hour. I brought on the point that code review structure needs to include configuration/xml files besides actual code. OWASP top ten now includes security misconfigurations that are no longer just at the level of infrastructure level on an organization but can happen by the application programmer.

We talk about the current structure. Sherif made the suggestion that the code review structure should use a top down approach with top being more process oriented with a generic checklist to cover all programming platforms. This high level approach would follow the OWASP top ten list but be at a slightly lower level.

From that generic checklist we could subdivide it into sections for each language and specific techniques to help guide the code reviewer.

Johanna and I both thought we would still need the checklist (maybe at a subsection level) to be specific to a language platform.

Some sections would only need to be at a generic level such as session management. (???) I think the current TOC actual might have this in mind but maybe it could be laid out with top levels talking about processes.

Sherif also brought up the point about where the code review process would take place in SDLC. Would it be for at the application level or at the code module level? Would we have a code review process that takes place in application design level so security would not be bolted on as an after thought.

Wednesday April 3, 2013
It was agreed that by 4/5/2013 we are going with the TOC as it is. Eoin is very open that during the project that if a subject matter that needs to be included it will be addresses at that time. We are working on assigning dates to sections and authors.

Samantha is working on getting base line wiki pages created for the project so authors can add contributed text. Eoin emphasized that all work submitted by each author needs to be original work. Authors do not need to put extra effort/work into diagrams. Eoin says will have all artwork touched up by a profession. We also need to make sure where necessary we have the proper references.

Friday June 14,2013
So far there has been a slow start-up on actual work being done on the wiki sections. If you still intend to work on a section please start (at least with a outline) in the wiki by July 14th so the project coordinators can know you are active on the section.

If you feel you have taken on too many sections then please remove your name from that section as soon as possible to allow the project coordinators to begin re-assigning. Any sections that are not started by July 14th will have the author automatically removed.

Our aim to have a full review draft of your sections by September 2013''

Project Status
April 2013 Status []