Difference between revisions of "Documentation Framework"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reverting to last version not containing links to s1.shard.jp)
(Reverting to last version not containing links to s1.shard.jp)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
http://www.textrocnab.com
 
 
== A Tailored Web Application Security Documentation Framework  ==
 
== A Tailored Web Application Security Documentation Framework  ==
  

Latest revision as of 07:50, 3 June 2009

Contents

A Tailored Web Application Security Documentation Framework

Introduction

In the last column I wrote, I set the scene to expect some big picture stuff. Here goes.

I strongly believe that if you are going to build an effective, scaleable and manageable application security program you have to start to build on great foundations. Great foundations mean great documentation: great policy, great standards and great process to then back it up. You have to get the basics right especially given the immaturity of commercial technology to support dealing with the problem today.

There are many reasons why documentation is important. For a start how can you hold anyone accountable or expect them to do the right thing unless you tell them clearly what the right thing is? If you work for a company that has more than a few hundred developers, it is just not feasible to spend time with all of them and educate about the issues and the policy. You have to build a publish and subscribe model where you the security evangelist publishers and the developers take responsibility for their own code by subscribing mentally.

And here in lies a conundrum. Technical evangelists (which for the most part is a category I think application security leaders today fall into) are usually not good at writing documentation or developing business process and business orientated folks are rarely technical enough to write credible documentation or develop process that will work Six Sigma initiatives, balance scorecards and such like are alien concepts to technicians, and source code trees and the RUP are equally as alien to business managers. Of course there are those with both skills but they are few and far between.

My advice is to do what Arnie will do when he takes over as governor of California. Accept that selecting the right tool for the job is half of the battle; surround yourself with good people that can do it all (or the bits that you are not as strong at) and build strong foundations. I think Arnie will be successful by leaning on the like of Warren Buffet for economic advice and others who together will get the job done.

Presenting a Web Application Security Documentation Framework

Before I describe the scope of what I think is needed in a typical large enterprise its worth discussing why one size won't fit all and why I mandate taking a tailored approach. Over the years I have rarely seen documentation frameworks that work. I have seen good documentation that was not applicable to the culture or technical environment; I have seen bad documentation (lots of it) and most often have found none at all. Security policy has a stigma attached to it. It is usually written by the security department for the security department itself and not for the audience. It is largely irrelevant and rarely maintained. In application security that general security policy problem is exaggerated as security departments (at least until recently) rarely had competent application security folks who could connect with the intended audience. Application security is all about unique things. That means people will legitimately do things in a particular way. Companies will have specific reusable components that should be used or tried and trusted ways of doing things. Therefore any generic documentation is likely to fail as it is not relevant to the environment and would unreasonably demand the audience to change ways that work today. On the other end of the spectrum my experience is that customized documentation frameworks that have been developed rarely contain the content about application security that is needed. The content they do contain is usually applicable and relevant but the scope falls far short of what is needed.

What I believe is needed is a tailored approach. A good framework from which people / consultants can tailor the content to the organizations culture, technology and existing process. With a tailored framework you can quickly highlight policy, standards or processes that is missing or weak. Tailoring allows you to not hit the ground running, provide a solid foundation, reuse good content (leveraging experience) and still ensure all content is applicable and therefore effective. Tailoring allows additional documentation to be developed or existing documentation to be eliminated based on need.

An Example Documentation Framework

To demonstrate what I mean by a tailored framework I have created an outline that I have used in the past and am currently developing to help me with consulting engagements.

Many people use the words policy, standards and procedure interchangeably. For the purpose of this framework;

  • A policy is a collection of high level statement of intent
  • A standard is a set of requirements about specific topics or technologies
  • A procedure describes a process of implementing a standard or a part of a standard

The hierarchy of how this fits together could be explained in the simple pyramid diagram below.

I advocate a specific web application security policy that should be referenced (as simple as one line) in the main corporate information security policy and mandated by the CIO (not the CSO). Each standard should typically have an associated procedure that explains exactly how to implement the standard. The policy should very rarely change, the standards will be updated periodically and the procedures are likely to be updated frequently as business process is refined.

Compartments

One of the most important things about the framework are the compartments. The compartments define and show the scope and extent of documentation that is needed as well as help the audience navigate the documentation framework to visually find what they need to know.

  • Languages and Development Frameworks
  • Infrastructure Configuration Management
  • Architecture and Design
  • Development, Deployment and Maintenance
  • Operational Security Management

As you can see from the framework diagram there are quite a few standards and procedures that I recommend. These diagrams are by no means complete. Organizations may need and choose far less than this to fit into their culture, security maturity or posture. Others may need far more. Remember these are not all encompassing and others may be needed or some may be eliminated based on your tailoring process. But at least this level of detail is typical in a large enterprise if you are going to scale and be effective. The OWASP Guide (which many people use as their web application security standards today) covers a limited sub-set of this (mainly design and architecture). Lets review the concept of each Compartment in more detail.

Languages, Development Frameworks and Protocols

The compartment deals with the languages and technology platforms upon which code is written;

  • Frameworks
    • J2EE
    • .NET
    • STRUTS
  • Languages
    • Java
    • C#
    • HTML (yes, HTML)
    • C
    • XML
  • HTTP
  • SSL
  • SOAP

A .NET standard may deal with versions, removing the samples, namespaces, removing tools etc. A J2EE standard covering things like class scope maybe supported by procedures for obfuscating code that is deployed to presentation tiers or how to call reusable security components (one of the most powerful procedures you can develop by the way).

Infrastructure Configuration Management

The infrastructure configuration management compartment deals with secure configurations for the components on which the application relies on for services. These include;

  • Web servers
  • Application servers
  • Databases
  • Firewalls
  • Directory Services
  • LAN/WAN Devices

At a minimum these are standards around which web and application servers can be used and security requirements for their configuration. Supporting procedures are then needed to spell out to administrators how to achieve those requirements such as applying security patches, setting file permissions or configuring access control.

Architecture and Design

  • Application Architecture
  • Network Security
    • Firewalls
    • Remote Access
  • Application Design
    • Authentication
    • Input Filtering
    • Authorization
    • User Management
    • Transport Security
    • Cryptography
    • Error Handling
    • Session Management
    • Data Handling

At a minimum these are standards around which web and application servers can be used and security requirements for their configuration. Supporting procedures are then needed to spell out to administrators how to achieve those requirements such as applying security patches, setting file permissions or configuring access control.

Development and Deployment

  • Application and Content Deployment
  • Assessment
    • Threat Modeling
    • Architecture Reviews
    • Code Review
    • Documentation Review
    • Process Reviews
    • Manual Inspection
    • Black Box Testing (implementation)
  • Source Code Management
  • Source Code Escrow

We all know there is a lot more to conducting an assessment that running a scanner over a web site (a topic we intend to cover in detail soon). Assessment standards should define the types of testing that is needed and be supported by detailed procedures for how to conduct it. Deployment standards would prescribe appropriate means to deploy code (no, FTP is not generally a suitable!)

Finally to underpin all this scalable framework is robust Operational Security Management

  • Change Control standards/procedures
  • Patch Management standards/procedures
  • Incident response standards/procedures/ event logging may have it covered

Once we have developed and deployed a secure application, we need to ensure that the day to day management of the applications maintains the high level of security and best practices implemented.

Conclusion / Advice

If you want to develop an effective application security program you need to build from solid foundations and make sure you have the basics covered. That means a good documentation framework. A good documentation framework covers policy, standards and procedures. The best way to create a framework is to use a tailored approach starting with base documents developed by experienced application security professionals and tailor them to your environment, culture and business. Do not reinvent the wheel.

Develop the core standards and procedures that you need based on your priorities. Never aim to have a static set of documents. Assume it will always be a work in progress.

There are a lot of topics to define requirements for and develop procedures and process to help people meet those requirements. Do not underestimate the amount of work or skill needed but do not be afraid to start and maintain what you psychologically think is incomplete work. It will never be complete. You do not need it all from day one.