Difference between revisions of "Projects/OWASP X5s Project/Releases/x5s v1.0.1/Assessment"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
==== Project Leader for this Release ====
 
==== Project Leader for this Release ====
'''''[[User:Chrisweber|Chris Weber]]'s Pre-Assessment Checklist:'''''
+
'''''[[User:ChrisWeber|Chris Weber]]'s Pre-Assessment Checklist:'''''
  
 
{{ Pre-Assessment Questions - Tools
 
{{ Pre-Assessment Questions - Tools
Line 64: Line 64:
  
 
| 1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?       
 
| 1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?       
=  
+
= (answer #1)
  
 
| 2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?
 
| 2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?
=  
+
= (answer #2)
  
 
|3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?
 
|3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?
=  
+
= (answer #3)
  
 
| 4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?
 
| 4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?
=  
+
= (answer #4)
  
 
| 5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?
 
| 5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?
=  
+
= (answer #5)
  
 
| 6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?
 
| 6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?
=  
+
= (answer #6)
  
 
| 7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?
 
| 7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?
=  
+
= (answer #7)
  
 
| 8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?
 
| 8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?
=  
+
= (answer #8)
  
 
| 9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?
 
| 9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?
=  
+
= (answer #9)
  
 
| 10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.
 
| 10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.
=  
+
= (answer #10)
  
 
| 11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)
 
| 11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)
=  
+
= (answer #11)
  
 
| 12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.
 
| 12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.
=  
+
= (answer #12)
  
 
| 13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?
 
| 13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?
=  
+
= (answer #13)
  
 
| 14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?
 
| 14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?
=  
+
= (answer #14)
  
 
}}
 
}}
Line 114: Line 114:
  
 
| 1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?       
 
| 1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?       
=  
+
= (answer #1)
  
 
| 2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?
 
| 2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?
=  
+
= (answer #2)
  
 
|3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?
 
|3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?
=  
+
= (answer #3)
  
 
| 4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?
 
| 4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?
=
+
= (answer #4)
  
 
| 5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?
 
| 5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?
=
+
= (answer #5)
  
 
| 6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?
 
| 6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?
=  
+
= (answer #6)
  
 
| 7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?
 
| 7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?
=  
+
= (answer #7)
  
 
| 8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?
 
| 8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?
=  
+
= (answer #8)
  
 
| 9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?
 
| 9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?
=  
+
= (answer #9)
  
 
| 10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.
 
| 10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.
=  
+
= (answer #10)
  
 
| 11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)
 
| 11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)
=  
+
= (answer #11)
  
 
| 12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.
 
| 12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.
=  
+
= (answer #12)
  
 
| 13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?
 
| 13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?
=  
+
= (answer #13)
  
 
| 14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?
 
| 14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?
=  
+
= (answer #14)
 +
 
  
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 15:19, 1 December 2010

Click here to return to project's main page

Stable Release Review of the OWASP X5s Project - x5s v1.0.1

Project Leader for this Release

Chris Weber's Pre-Assessment Checklist:

(This FORM is EDITED via a template)

Alpha level

1. Is this release associated with a project containing at least the Project Wiki Page Minimum Content information?


(answer #1)

2. Is your tool licensed under an open source license? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #2)

3. Is the source code and any documentation available in an online project repository? (e.g. Google Code or Sourceforge site) Please point out the link(s).


(answer #3)

4. Is there working code? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #4)

5. Is there a roadmap for this project release which will take it from Alpha to Stable release? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #5)

Beta Level

6. Are the Alpha pre-assessment items complete?


(answer #6)

7. Is there an installer or stand-alone executable? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #7)

8. Is there user documentation on the OWASP project wiki page? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #8)

9. Is there an "About box" or similar help item which lists the following? Please point out the link(s).

  • Project Name
  • Short Description
  • Project Release Lead and contact information (e.g. email address)
  • Project Release Contributors (if any)
  • Project Release License
  • Project Release Sponsors (if any)
  • Release status and date assessed as Month-Year (e.g. March 2009)
  • Link to OWASP Project Page

(answer #9)

10. Is there documentation on how to build the tool from source including obtaining the source from the code repository? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #10)

11. Is the tool documentation stored in the same repository as the source code? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #11)

Stable Level

12. Are the Alpha and Beta pre-assessment items complete?


(answer #12)

13. Does the tool include documentation built into the tool? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #13)

14. Does the tool include build scripts to automate builds? Please point out the link(s)


(answer #14)

15. Is there a publicly accessible bug tracking system? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #15)

16. Have any existing limitations of the tool been documented? Please point out the link(s).


(answer #16)


First Reviewer

TBD's Review:
Ideally, reviewers should be an existing OWASP project leader or chapter leader.

(This FORM is EDITED via a template)

Beta Release Level Questions

1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?


(answer #1)

2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?


(answer #2)

3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?


(answer #3)

4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?


(answer #4)

5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?


(answer #5)

6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?


(answer #6)

Stable Release Level Questions

7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?


(answer #7)

8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?


(answer #8)

9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?


(answer #9)

10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.


(answer #10)

11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)


(answer #11)

12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.


(answer #12)

13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?


(answer #13)

14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?


(answer #14)

Second Reviewer

TBD's Review:
It is recommended that an OWASP board member or Global Projects Committee member be the second reviewer on Quality releases. The board has the initial option to review the project, followed by the Global Projects Committee.

(This FORM is EDITED via a template)

Beta Release Level Questions

1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?


(answer #1)

2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?


(answer #2)

3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?


(answer #3)

4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?


(answer #4)

5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?


(answer #5)

6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?


(answer #6)

Stable Release Level Questions

7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?


(answer #7)

8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?


(answer #8)

9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?


(answer #9)

10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.


(answer #10)

11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)


(answer #11)

12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.


(answer #12)

13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?


(answer #13)

14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?


(answer #14)