OWASP Working Session - OWASP Tools Projects

From OWASP
Revision as of 13:35, 12 December 2008 by Jason Li (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

About the Working Session

Working Sessions Operational Rules - Please see here the general frame of rules.
WORKING SESSION IDENTIFICATION
Work Session Name OWASP Tools Projects
Short Work Session Description The working session for OWASP Tools will address standards for Tool development at OWASP. This is will include standards for documentation, supporting tools via Books, How-Tos, Webcasts, Podcasts. We will also dive deep into the OWASP Project Assessment.
Related Projects (if any)

OWASP Tools Projects

Email Contacts & Roles Chair
Matt Tesauro
Secretary
Jason Li
Mailing list
Subscription Page
WORKING SESSION SPECIFICS
Objectives
  • Discuss documentation procedures.
  • Book creation procedure.
  • Review OWASP Project Assessment.
Venue/Date&Time/Model Venue
OWASP EU Summit Portugal 2008
Date&Time
November 4 & 7, 2008
Time TBD
Discussion Model
"Participants + Attendees"
WORKING SESSION OPERATIONAL RESOURCES
Please add here, ASAP, any needed relevant resources, e.g. data-show, boards, laptops, etc.

Working Session Participants

WORKING SESSION PARTICIPANTS
Name Company Notes & reason for participating, issues to be discussed/addressed
1 Paulo Coimbra OWASP Has contributed to the current OWASP Assessment Criteria.
2 Rogan Dawes Corsaire WebScarab lead
3 Andrew Petukhov Moscow State University Access Control Rules Tester lead
4 Christian Martorella Edge-Security WebSlayer lead
5 Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman Independent Enigform & mod_openpgp SOC07/08
6 Pavol Luptak Nethemba s.r.o. Slovkia OWASP Chapter leader
7 Nishi Kumar Fidelity Nationals Contributed on Live CD 2008

Working Session Outcomes

Standardized Output for OWASP Tools

Explanation

For tools that generate output, it should be in a well-defined manner (XML-preferred) so that it can be easily used as input into another project, program, process, etc or quickly convertible into an easily readable format. Whenever possible, a project should re-use an existing standard (ex. ADVL, OVAL) for this purpose.

Rationale

The idea is to allow easier integration to encourage tool chaining, customized report generation, adaptability into other environments, etc.

Voting Outcome

  • For: 25 votes
  • Against: 0 votes


Official OWASP Code Repository

Explanation

Provide or arrange for one standard, managed, OWASP-controlled place for all tool projects to maintain their source code. This could be an OWASP branded arrangement with Google Code, Sourceforge, etc, or an OWASP-maintained SVN server.

Rationale

Provides a central, standardized place for code repository that allows a standardized way to track metrics such as activity, usage, downloads, etc. It also provides a single point for all projects that can be linked in with the OWASP website for ease of use and documentation for new OWASP project developers.

Voting Outcome

  • For: 26 votes
  • Against: 0 votes

Create Metrics for OWASP Project Evaluation

Explanation

Beyond current OWASP Project quality metrics, create other metrics to evaluate projects by things such as activity, usability, relevance to current standards/technologies, how well the project addresses the problem it is trying to solve, etc. This could even include a user review system (a la Star ratings).

Rationale

Existing projects are in a state of disarray that do not readily lend themselves to OWASP Alpha/Beta/Release quality standards. Also, quality alone is not a sufficient measure of an OWASP Project.

Voting Outcome

  • For: 25 votes
  • Against: 0 votes

(See scanned votes)

Make Available an OWASP Technical Writer

Explanation

OWASP should make experienced technical writer(s) available to projects to review, critique and suggest changes on existing or newly created project documentation. This could be a single full-time person or a pool of part-time, on-demand technical writers.

Rationale

To appeal to more users and corporations, projects need well written documentation. Additionally, this will help with project adoption.

Voting Outcome

Standardize User Interface for OWASP Graphical Tools

Explanation

Create a standard UI design "kit" for tools that have a GUI that includes:

  • OWASP logos and icons for use in applications
  • Standardized OWASP color scheme specifications
  • Human useability guidelines such as scalar sizing, standard shortcuts, and other UI Best Practices

Rationale

Bad user interface design can limit adoption of a tool and inconsistent UI design can hurt the OWASP brand. Consistent, well-designed UIs make tools easy to use and encourage adoption.

Voting Outcome

  • For: 21 Votes
  • Against: 0 Votes

(See scanned votes)

Make Available an OWASP UI/Graphic Designer

Explanation

OWASP should make experienced UI/graphic designer(s) available to projects to review, critique and suggest changes on existing or newly created project GUIs. This could be a single full-time person or a pool of part-time, on-demand UI/graphic designer.

Rationale

Most developers are not good graphic designers and make user interface design decisions based on limited experiences. Minor UI annoyances can inhibit tool adoption.

Voting Outcome

AJAX-Enabled Web Spider/Crawler Tool

Explanation

A tool to crawl over AJAX pages in a JS-aware manner.

Rationale

More and more sites are moving to an AJAX-enabled design and existing open-source tools do not handle these types of sites well.

Voting Outcome

Re-categorize OWASP Projects

Explanation

As part of the project proposal phase, tools should identify the type of tool, the intended audience of the tool, and phases in the SDLC where the tool might be useful. In addition, existing tools should undergo this classification process.

Rationale

The "Tools" heading encompasses a broad range of projects including API Frameworks, testing tools, reporting tools, etc. This is extremely hard to navigate for a new OWASP user. Classifying tools across multiple headings would also allow the OWASP site to highlight projects or to create a "How Can OWASP Help You?" page that direct users to projects that are most relevant to them.

===Voting Outcome==