OWASP Summer of Code 2008 Applications - for selection criteria vote

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

OWASP Summer of Code 2008 Applications - for selection criteria vote

OWASP AntiSamy .NET

  • Arshan Dabirsiaghi

Executive Summary
The OWASP AntiSamy Project was well received at the OWASP/WASC San Jose 2007 conference, and the momentum carried forward as the project was noted in several popular blogs and had its various distributions downloaded in aggregate thousands of times.

All the platforms, not just Java, need this functionality. The Zend group is currently working on getting a PHP version started, so naturally the only platform remaining for major sites is .NET. Therefore, I propose that OWASP sponsor me in creating a .NET version of the OWASP AntiSamy Project. It should also be noted that the OWASP ESAPI .NET project requires this API to be created.

Background
I'm currently a Senior Application Security Engineer at Aspect Security, an industry leading application security company. I've delivered tutorials all over the country at various commercial organizations and conferences like OWASP and Blackhat.

Proposed Project Reviewer: Jeff Williams/Dinis Cruz
Jeff Williams will be the easiest reviewer due to proximity, but Dinis Cruz's or another OWASP .NET project member's knowledge of .NET may prove useful to the project.

Objectives and Deliverables
The aim of the project would be to deliver a functionally identical version of the AntiSamy project in .NET. Secondarily, we would hope to deliver a Release quality product by the end of the Summer of Code timeframe in line with the Java version.


Python Static Analysis

By Georgy Klimov

Introduction:

During 2007 Dmitry Kozlov, Igor Konnov and Georgy Klimov prototyped taint-style static analysis for Python web applications. This tool is based on Pixy project. It is able to find input validation security vulnerabilities in Python-based web applications. This tool is currently in alfa release. It supports limited subset of Python: functions, modules, classes and data structures, but not generators, comprehensions, lambda-functions etc. And it has support only mod_python web applications.


Project objectives:

The aim of this project is to bring this project to at least beta quality to become OWASP open source project:

  • full language support,
  • other Python frameworks support,
  • analysis improvement,
  • reporting capability,
  • documentation,
  • promotion materials: publication-ready article and presentation.


Future directions of development:

Integration of this tool into teachable static analysis workbench applied to SoC 2008 by Dmitry Kozlov and Igor Konnov. Additional languages support.


Why should I be sponsored for this project:

I’m 5-th year graduate student at Moscow State University and my scientific work concern with static program analysis. I’m very good in programming Java and Python (this tool is written mostly in Java). This tool was written by me and my scientific advisors: Dmitry Kozlov and Igor Konnov.

OWASP Classic ASP Security Project

  • Juan Carlos Calderon

Executive Summary
I am interested in making P018 - OWASP Classic ASP Security Project happen, Classic ASP 2.0 and 3.0 applications are still largely used as this technology is more than 10 years old and was largely used. there are thousands of sites on the wild that need guidance on the security arena. This is where OWASP can come up and provide help for “making the Web a better place” and continue spreading the word on security. I have always be a passionate of the technology (regardless of its inconveniences such as being old and DLL-hell prone) and I am really exited on the idea of sharing my knowledge of this area to the world and what best that though OWASP.

Objectives and Deliverables
Create a secure framework for Classic ASP application by complementing existing OWASP projects with documentation for this particular technology and the creation of security libraries. More specifically:

  • Creation of a Common Object Repository for ASP applications based on OWASP ESAPI Project including objects and/or references to libraries for security applications all this aligned with OWASP Top10 and OWASP Guide .
  • Create Documentation aligned to OWASP Code Review Project Checklist providing additional technology-specific checks.
  • Addition of expression for Code Review Tool to support Classic ASP applications.
  • Implementation of Version 1 of Stinger for ASP either by using an installable COM library or ISAPI.
  • This same module will compliment the OWASP Validation Documentation Project.

Why should I be sponsored for the project?
I have 10 years of experience on Web technologies. During 8 years I have performed and leaded hundreds of Security Source Code Reviews and Black box testing on Web Applications. On my current job I lead 30 people in diverse locations all of them working on the Application Security arena, so I am accustomed to execute and deliver.

Also I’ve had close contact with OWASP since 2005 [1] by making possible the translation of OWASP Top 10 2004 [2] and OWASP Testing Guide V1.17 [3] to Spanish.

OWASP Live CD 2008 Project

  • Matt Tesauro

Introduction

The previous OWASP Live CD project distributions have laid a good foundation for the 2008 Project. I'd like to take the existing Live CD and further enhance it. I see the 2008 Live CD as filling the Web App Sec niche not the more general Pen Tester niche. I'd concede general Pen Testing to Backtrack [4]. However, Backtrack has a different audience and is not specifically tailored for web application security professionals. This is the role I think this Live CD could fulfill with great success. I'd like to take the OWASP Live CD 2008 Project in that direction and see the OWASP Live CD become to Web App Sec what Backtrack is to Pen Testing.

Proposal

I'd like to take the existing applications and documentation in the current Live CD and add significantly more tools and documentation specifically focused on Web application security. I think OWASP's Phoenix/Tools page [5] would be a good starting point for potential tools. I'd also like to use WASC [6] and ISECOM/OSSTMM [7] as sources for material.

The project would first enumerate a list of tools to include on the CD where licensing, supported OS and space will determine what is included on the Live CD. After determining a reasonable list of tools, the next phase would be to create modules for the tools and merge these modules with the Live CD. Then documentation and tutorials would be added (also as space allows) followed by any remaining OWASP branding. Additional polishing could include pre-installation (license permitting) of the VMware tools.

Deliverables

April 2 to May 15, 2008

  • Enumerated tools and reference material for installation verifying that the software license allows permits distribution.

May 16 to July 4, 2008

  • Create modules for each tool and begin to merge the modules with the base distribution.
  • Begin testing of the Live CD.

July 5 to August 31, 2008

  • Complete the merging of modules and install any remaining documentation.
  • Further testing of the Live CD particularly installation of new/updated modules.

Challenges / Outstanding Issues

While the current Live CD is base on Morphix – a Knoppix derivative created to allow easy creation of custom Live CDs, I'm not sure it it provides the flexibility needed to keep the CD tools updated. While I'm fine with keeping the Live CD on Morphix, I also see value in switching to another distribution: SLAX. Here's the brief pros and cons of each as I see them.

Pros of Mophix:

  • no change to current LiveCD - principally just updates to existing and augment.
  • Modular Live CD
  • Based on Knoppix which is the granddaddy of live CDs (tons of documentation)

Cons of Morphix:

  • While modular, uses a modular structure which isn't compatible with other well established live CDs - particularly Backtrack
  • Modules are not as granular as SLAX (lower ease of updating)

Pros of SLAX:

  • Modular Live CD (more modular then Morphix though I'm more familiar with SLAX then Morphix from using/modifying Backtrack)
  • Same modular format as Backtrack and other SLAX variants. This allows module sharing between OWASP and other live CDs
  • As tools are updated, only the module for that tools would need to be updated - not the entire live CD.

Con of SLAX:

  • Would have to re-do the work done for the current Live CD

As said above, I'm not sold on either distro but I do think going forward, the more granular modules of SLAX will allow for easier updates of the included tools and documentation. Backtrack is a good example of this. I think the migration would represent a short term loss for a long term gain.

A bit about me

I've been using Linux since somewhere around 1996 when I got my first “Mega Distro pack” which included 6+ distro CDs, a bumper sticker and a t-shirt for $29.95. I think it was in the RedHat 5.2 time frame. I've had Linux as my primary OS since 2000 and have used many, many different distros. Also, I am a RHCE (#803005588313799) as well as Linux+ certified so I believe I'm qualified the Linux aspects of the project.

I got started with creating static HTML pages in 1999 and my first job out of college was a Web application developer for an international telecom company in 2000. Later, I took a developer job at Texas A&M University and also taught Web application development courses at the undergraduate and graduate level. Next, I spent some time as a Pen Tester where I discovered WHAX, Auditor and Backtrack live CDs and realized how useful they can be. Currently, I work on Web Application Security for an agency with ~75 internally developed web apps and 500,000+ users. I'm involved in application development from preliminary design reviews to pre-production security testing. I also have a CISSP (Cert # 67636) and CEH (Certified Ethical Hacker) security certifications. I've been enjoying OWASP since I first discovered Web Goat (then at version 3.7) and thought it was high time I gave something back to OWASP.