Difference between revisions of "ESAPI Static Analysis Support"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 5: Line 5:
 
*** This will allow the existing rules provided by the tools to be run against the application, while recognizing what ESAPI does, like validate, encode, etc.
 
*** This will allow the existing rules provided by the tools to be run against the application, while recognizing what ESAPI does, like validate, encode, etc.
 
*** If a tool can recognize ESAPI-based validation/encoding and other controls, it might help to reduce the number of false positives
 
*** If a tool can recognize ESAPI-based validation/encoding and other controls, it might help to reduce the number of false positives
 +
*** If there is a mapping from CWE names to associated ESAPI controls, then a tool could use its CWE results to suggest which controls to focus on first.
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
* Fact: There are coding rules we would like developers to follow to build secure apps that are not currently being checked for, possibly because developers don't have the capability to do some of these things today. ESAPI is intended to make it far easier for developers to adopt new secure coding practices and we would like to check to make sure they are following these new best practices
 
* Fact: There are coding rules we would like developers to follow to build secure apps that are not currently being checked for, possibly because developers don't have the capability to do some of these things today. ESAPI is intended to make it far easier for developers to adopt new secure coding practices and we would like to check to make sure they are following these new best practices

Revision as of 14:13, 11 December 2008

There are a number of activities related to static analysis tools and ESAPI.

  • Claim: Use of ESAPI 'should' make it easier to analyze applications for security using analysis tools. To facilitate this we should:
    • Develop markup for ESAPI for each of the major static analysis tools (open source AND commercial)
      • This will allow the existing rules provided by the tools to be run against the application, while recognizing what ESAPI does, like validate, encode, etc.
      • If a tool can recognize ESAPI-based validation/encoding and other controls, it might help to reduce the number of false positives
      • If there is a mapping from CWE names to associated ESAPI controls, then a tool could use its CWE results to suggest which controls to focus on first.


  • Fact: There are coding rules we would like developers to follow to build secure apps that are not currently being checked for, possibly because developers don't have the capability to do some of these things today. ESAPI is intended to make it far easier for developers to adopt new secure coding practices and we would like to check to make sure they are following these new best practices
    • OWASP should develop its own 'rules' on what it thinks applications should do to use ESAPI correctly, which won't currently be represented in existing tool rulesets
    • OWASP should also develop its own 'rules' on what it thinks that applications should do to be secure, that don't necessarily depend on the use of ESAPI. These rules would be applicable to all applications, regardless of whether they are using ESAPI or not.


We might want to start with something open source like FindBugs and do the above for it first (if it can handle what we want to do), and then encourage the major static analysis tool vendors to implement equivalent API markup and rules for their tool. There is already precedent for publication of rules for commercial tools (see CERT C Secure Coding standard pack for Fortify and others)