Project Information:template OpenSign Server Project - Final Review - Second Reviewer - F

From OWASP
Revision as of 22:48, 5 March 2009 by Gary.m.burns (Talk | contribs)

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

Clik here to return to the previous page.

FINAL REVIEW
PART I

Project Deliveries & Objectives

OWASP OpenSign Server Project's Deliveries & Objectives

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

1. At what extent have the project deliveries & objectives been accomplished? Having in consideration the assumed ones, please exemplify writing down those of them that haven't been realised.

  • Client tool to generate RSA key pair and request signing certificate by return via a secure connection, secure connection will authenticate user after a dedicated registration process and also use mutual authentication SSL to avoid man-in-the-middle - returning certificate to user in real time. Registered developer can then submit their SPC online to verify the SPC.

-> ok

  • Client tool to download software that will do a proper verification on the software against the code signing service

-> code download and verification is not available in the OSSJClient. Verification of the certificate is therefore performed independently of the signed code (one step is missing in the process).

  • Website interface for the code signing service

-> ok

  • Set of Admin tools to manage the code signing service, user and certificate repository

-> available, but completeness of features should be validated

  • Documentation

-> User documentation has been completed.

-> The demonstration could be more explicit related to the integration of the tools in the software deployment process. The role of entities (certificate, CSR) could be explained more precisely, so as to enable developpers with limited security knowledge to use the tool. For instance: integrate the documentation (opendsign-concept.doc ...) in the demo slides.

Documentation in the code repository contains the original design doc rather than the current dev/use documentation.

OK

2. At what extent have the project deliveries & objectives been accomplished? Having in consideration the assumed ones, please quantify in terms of percentage.

  • Client tool to generate RSA key pair and request signing certificate by return via a secure connection, secure connection will authenticate user after a dedicated registration process and also use mutual authentication SSL to avoid man-in-the-middle - returning certificate to user in real time. Registered developer can then submit their SPC online to verify the SPC.

100 %

  • Client tool to download software that will do a proper verification on the software against the code signing service

50%

  • Website interface for the code signing service

90 %

  • Set of Admin tools to manage the code signing service, user and certificate repository

70 %

3. Please do use the right hand side column to provide advice and make work suggestions.

Second comments:

  • I was able to get this running fine on MS OS with Java/Maven and compile in the Eclipse IDE
  • it would be nice it it would be possible to simply download and run the code

for the server and the client - AGREE

  • available user documentation: what can I do with each tool, how (for instance under the form of a '5 minutes introduction' and reference list of available functions) ? - AGREE
  • I would like to see the C# version as well
  • it would be nice if the 'trunk' would be documented in a way that let the user know:
  • how to run the server and clients (a global 'readme' file is missing).
  • Moreover, the 'opensign-design' document could be completed. User documentation makes this less urgent. - Agree

Final Review

Extending the OSSJClient with code download and verification feature would provide a important added value for a reasonnable work overhead. It could therefore be done in priority.

PART II

Assessment Criteria

OWASP Project Assessment Criteria

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

1. Having into consideration the OWASP Project Assessment Methodology which criteria, if any, haven’t been fulfilled in terms of Alpha Quality status?

2. Having into consideration the OWASP Project Assessment Methodology which criteria, if any, haven’t been fulfilled in terms of Beta Quality status?

  • Include user documentation in Project's OWASP Wiki page(s)

OK

3. Having into consideration the OWASP Project Assessment Methodology which criteria, if any, haven’t been fulfilled in terms of Release Quality status?

  • Include online documention built into tool (based on required user documentation)
  • Be run through Fortify Software's open source review (if appropriate) and FindBugs

OK

4. Please do use the right hand side column to provide advice and make work suggestions.