Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Principle"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(New section: Proven principles)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
Why is Principles immediately limited to Application Security Principles? Aren't other kinds of principle relevant? --[[User:RichardVeryard|RichardVeryard]] 13:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 
Why is Principles immediately limited to Application Security Principles? Aren't other kinds of principle relevant? --[[User:RichardVeryard|RichardVeryard]] 13:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Proven principles ==
 +
 +
This page refers to "proven" principles. What counts as a proof - a self-appointed guru wrote it somewhere, a statistician has done a detailed meta-analysis of the literature, or what? --[[User:RichardVeryard|RichardVeryard]] 13:55, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:55, 12 August 2008

"Fail safely" gets redirected to a page with the heading "Fail Securely" (but still named "Fail_safely"). It seems someone thought "Fail Securely" is a better phrase for the principle than "Fail safely", but the change needs to be propagated to this page (and possibly on other pages).

I'd fix it myself but there is no page named "Fail_securely" and I don't want to make a mess of things for others -- I'm just visiting this site for the first time and don't have a feel yet for how it's being setup and maintained - I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but am trying to help...

Chris

  Thanks Chris - I updated the main principle page to list "Fail Securely"
  instead of "Fail Safely."  There is a page called
  http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Fail_securely.  MediaWiki
  leaves behind any pages that are renamed with a redirect
  to the new page, so that any old links get to the right place.
       Jeff Williams 16:09, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Application Security Principles

Why is Principles immediately limited to Application Security Principles? Aren't other kinds of principle relevant? --RichardVeryard 13:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Proven principles

This page refers to "proven" principles. What counts as a proof - a self-appointed guru wrote it somewhere, a statistician has done a detailed meta-analysis of the literature, or what? --RichardVeryard 13:55, 12 August 2008 (EDT)