OWASP Working Session - OWASP Tools Projects
- 1 About the Working Session
- 2 Working Session Participants
- 3 Working Session Outcomes
- 3.1 Standardized Output for OWASP Tools
- 3.2 Official OWASP Code Repository
- 3.3 Create Metrics for OWASP Project Evaluation
- 3.4 Make Available an OWASP Technical Writer
- 3.5 Standardize User Interface for OWASP Graphical Tools
- 3.6 Make Available an OWASP UI/Graphic Designer
- 3.7 AJAX-Enabled Web Spider/Crawler Tool
- 3.8 Re-categorize OWASP Projects
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)|
|Email Contacts & Roles||Chair
|WORKING SESSION SPECIFICS|
OWASP EU Summit Portugal 2008
November 4 & 7, 2008
"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
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.
The idea is to allow easier integration to encourage tool chaining, customized report generation, adaptability into other environments, etc.
- For: 25 votes
- Against: 0 votes
Official OWASP Code Repository
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.
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.
- For: 26 votes
- Against: 0 votes
Create Metrics for OWASP Project Evaluation
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).
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.
- For: 25 votes
- Against: 0 votes
Make Available an OWASP Technical Writer
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.
To appeal to more users and corporations, projects need well written documentation. Additionally, this will help with project adoption.
Standardize User Interface for OWASP Graphical Tools
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
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.
- For: 21 Votes
- Against: 0 Votes
Make Available an OWASP UI/Graphic Designer
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.
Most developers are not good graphic designers and make user interface design decisions based on limited experiences. Minor UI annoyances can inhibit tool adoption.
AJAX-Enabled Web Spider/Crawler Tool
A tool to crawl over AJAX pages in a JS-aware manner.
More and more sites are moving to an AJAX-enabled design and existing open-source tools do not handle these types of sites well.
Re-categorize OWASP Projects
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.
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.