OWASP Code review V2 Project
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.
Eoin Keary is continuing his successful leadership as the technical lead of the Code Review Guide Project.
Larry Conklin is the project support person.
You can sign up for the OWASP Code Review Guide Project email list at General Code Review Guide mailing
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 []
General Template to be used by Code Review Guide Authors.
- 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.
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: email@example.com
- Anand Prakash firstname.lastname@example.org
- Andre Gironda email@example.com
- Andreas Athanasoulias firstname.lastname@example.org
- Ashish Rao email@example.com
- Avi Douglen firstname.lastname@example.org
- Azzeddine Ramrami: email@example.com
- Bob Wintemberg firstname.lastname@example.org
- Chris Berberich <email@example.com>
- Gary David Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Greg Disney: email@example.com
- Hartl, Manuel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- James Widener email@example.com
- Jason Karlin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Manuel Hartl email@example.com
- Mittal Mehta firstname.lastname@example.org
- Mghazli Zyad <Zyad.MGHAZLI@solucom.fr>
- Mohammed Damavandi email@example.com
- Neil Matatall firstname.lastname@example.org
- Renchie Joan Abraham: email@example.com
- Said Moftakhar firstname.lastname@example.org
- Shahryar Jahangir email@example.com
- Shenal Silva firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sherif Koussa email@example.com
- Sravan Kumar firstname.lastname@example.org
- Travis Risner email@example.com
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.
Project Meeting Notes
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 April 20,2013
Friday May 3, 2013
Friday May 17,2013
April 2013 Status []