Re: [SC-L] SC-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 50

2009-03-25 Thread Leverett, Eireann (GE Infra, Energy)
 
The core problem is that the language/format mixes code and data with no
way to differentiate between them.

I'm with you on this one. 


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


[SC-L] SAMM 1.0 Released! | OpenSAMM

2009-03-25 Thread Kenneth Van Wyk

Good news today from the Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM) group.

http://www.opensamm.org/2009/03/samm-10-released/

Their release says:

The Beta release has been out for quite a while now (since August  
2008) and lots of organizations and individuals have provided  
excellent feedback to help improve the model. I’ve heard lots of  
stories from people using SAMM (some are consulting firms, and some  
are development organizations) and that feedback has been some of the  
most valuable. This release marks the official 1.0 version of SAMM and  
there’s a few new pieces added:


* Executive summary and introduction to the model
* Improved details on applying the model to solve problems
* Assessment worksheets for evaluating existing programs
* Roadmaps for financial services and government organizations
* Improvements and refinements to the model (I’ll cover changes  
individually in separate posts)


Many thanks to the individual reviewers and the organizations that  
have volunteered time to help improve SAMM. I look forward to more  
active participants as we push forward with some of the future  
development plans for SAMM.




Cheers,

Ken

-
Kenneth R. van Wyk
KRvW Associates, LLC
http://www.KRvW.com







smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] SAMM 1.0 Released! | OpenSAMM

2009-03-25 Thread Pravir Chandra
Hey Ken.

Thanks for sending this out. I've mentioned it before, but today I'm
proud to announce that the Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM)
version 1.0 has been released and is freely available for download
from http://www.opensamm.org

For those unfamiliar, SAMM is an open framework to help organizations
formulate and implement a strategy for software security that is
tailored to the specific risks facing the organization. The resources
provided by SAMM will aid in:

* Evaluating an organization’s existing software security practices
* Building a balanced software security program in well-defined iterations
* Demonstrating concrete improvements to a security assurance program
* Defining and measuring security-related activities within an organization

SAMM was defined with flexibility in mind such that it can be utilized
by small, medium, and large organizations using any style of
development. Additionally, this model can be applied
organization-wide, for a single line-of-business, or even for an
individual project.

As an open project, SAMM content shall always remain vendor-neutral
and freely available for all to use. The project has received a huge
amount of attention and is keeping me busy, but we're always open to
more feedback and supporters.

Thanks!

p.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Kenneth Van Wyk k...@krvw.com wrote:
 Good news today from the Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM) group.

 http://www.opensamm.org/2009/03/samm-10-released/

 Their release says:

 The Beta release has been out for quite a while now (since August 2008) and
 lots of organizations and individuals have provided excellent feedback to
 help improve the model. I’ve heard lots of stories from people using SAMM
 (some are consulting firms, and some are development organizations) and that
 feedback has been some of the most valuable. This release marks the official
 1.0 version of SAMM and there’s a few new pieces added:

    * Executive summary and introduction to the model
    * Improved details on applying the model to solve problems
    * Assessment worksheets for evaluating existing programs
    * Roadmaps for financial services and government organizations
    * Improvements and refinements to the model (I’ll cover changes
 individually in separate posts)

 Many thanks to the individual reviewers and the organizations that have
 volunteered time to help improve SAMM. I look forward to more active
 participants as we push forward with some of the future development plans
 for SAMM.



 Cheers,

 Ken

 -
 Kenneth R. van Wyk
 KRvW Associates, LLC
 http://www.KRvW.com






 ___
 Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
 List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
 List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
 SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
 as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
 ___





-- 
~ ~  ~ ~~~ ~~ ~
Pravir Chandra  chandraatlistdotorg
PGP:CE60 0E10 9207 7290 06EB   5107 4032 63FC 338E 16E4
~ ~~ ~~~ ~  ~ ~

___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] Online Secure Development Training?

2009-03-25 Thread Dave Wichers
My company, Aspect Security, is producing a full line of secure coding
CBTs based on our large curriculum of live application security training
courses that we have.

I am not aware of any other initiatives like this, but there might be
others.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: sc-l-boun...@securecoding.org
[mailto:sc-l-boun...@securecoding.org] On Behalf Of Brad Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:22 AM
To: SC-L@securecoding.org
Subject: [SC-L] Online Secure Development Training?


Does anyone know of any good CBT training on secure development,  
especially covering higher level issues and secure code review?

Brad
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc -
http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC
(http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___

___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] Online Secure Development Training?

2009-03-25 Thread Tom Brennan
 Brad, take a peek at  http://denimgroup.com/service_sec_training.html



On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brad Andrews andr...@rbacomm.com wrote:

 Does anyone know of any good CBT training on secure development,
 especially covering higher level issues and secure code review?

 Brad
 ___
 Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
 List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
 List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
 SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
 as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
 ___




-- 
Tom Brennan
Board Member
OWASP Foundation
Tel: 973-795-1046 x112
Url: www.owasp.org
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] BSIMM: Confessions of a Software SecurityAlchemist(informIT)

2009-03-25 Thread Andy Steingruebl
Ok, so your point then is that a desire for type-safety influenced the
hardware architecture of these machines.  Fair enough, though I don't know
enough of the history of these machines to know how accurate it is.  But how
can I doubt you Gary? :)

I was mainly reflecting in my comments though that the programming language
and the hardware architecture are coupled in terms of the resulting security
model.  Or they can be anyway.


On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Gary McGraw g...@cigital.com wrote:

 Hi Andy,

 The code/data mix is certainly a problem.  Also a problem is the way stacks
 grow on many particular machines, especially with common C/C++ compilers.
  You noted a Burroughs where things were done better.  There are many
 others.  C is usually just a sloppy mess by default.

 Language choice can sometimes make up for bad machine architecture, but
 ultimately at some level of computational abstraction they come to be the
 same thing.  You may recall that I am a scheme guy.  TI made a scheme
 machine that never caught on some years back (around the same time as the
 LISP machine...like emacs only even more bindings at least on the Symbolics
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine).  Those machines had a
 fundamentally different architecture at the processor level.

 In any case, type safety is at the root of these decisions and makes a HUGE
 difference.  Go back and read your lambda calculus, think about closure,
 symbolic representation, continuations, and first class objects and I think
 you'll see what I mean.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

 gem
 (supposedly still on vacation, but it is a rainy day)

 http://www.cigital.com/~gem http://www.cigital.com/%7Egem


 On 3/24/09 2:50 PM, Andy Steingruebl stein...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Gary McGraw g...@cigital.com wrote:
 hi guys,

 I think there is a bit of confusion here WRT root problems.  In C, the
 main problem is not simply strings and string representation, but rather
 that the sea of bits can be recast to represent most anything.  The
 technical term for the problem is the problem of type safety.  C is not type
 safe.

 Really?  It isn't that the standard von Neumann architecture doesn't
 differentiate between data and code?  We've gone over this ground before
 with stack-machines like the Burroughs B5500 series which were not
 susceptible to buffer overflows that changed control flow because code and
 data were truly distinct chunks of memory.

 Sure its a different programming/hardware model, but if you want to fix the
 root cause you'll have to go deeper than language choice right?  You might
 have other tradeoffs but the core problem here isn't just type safety.

 Just like in the HTML example.  The core problem is that the
 language/format mixes code and data with no way to differentiate between
 them.

 Or is my brain working too slowly today?




-- 
Andy Steingruebl
stein...@gmail.com
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] BSIMM: Confessions of a Software SecurityAlchemist(informIT)

2009-03-25 Thread Gary McGraw
Hi Andy,

The code/data mix is certainly a problem.  Also a problem is the way stacks 
grow on many particular machines, especially with common C/C++ compilers.  You 
noted a Burroughs where things were done better.  There are many others.  C is 
usually just a sloppy mess by default.

Language choice can sometimes make up for bad machine architecture, but 
ultimately at some level of computational abstraction they come to be the same 
thing.  You may recall that I am a scheme guy.  TI made a scheme machine that 
never caught on some years back (around the same time as the LISP 
machine...like emacs only even more bindings at least on the Symbolics 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine).  Those machines had a 
fundamentally different architecture at the processor level.

In any case, type safety is at the root of these decisions and makes a HUGE 
difference.  Go back and read your lambda calculus, think about closure, 
symbolic representation, continuations, and first class objects and I think 
you'll see what I mean.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

gem
(supposedly still on vacation, but it is a rainy day)

http://www.cigital.com/~gem


On 3/24/09 2:50 PM, Andy Steingruebl stein...@gmail.com wrote:


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Gary McGraw g...@cigital.com wrote:
hi guys,

I think there is a bit of confusion here WRT root problems.  In C, the main 
problem is not simply strings and string representation, but rather that the 
sea of bits can be recast to represent most anything.  The technical term for 
the problem is the problem of type safety.  C is not type safe.

Really?  It isn't that the standard von Neumann architecture doesn't 
differentiate between data and code?  We've gone over this ground before with 
stack-machines like the Burroughs B5500 series which were not susceptible to 
buffer overflows that changed control flow because code and data were truly 
distinct chunks of memory.

Sure its a different programming/hardware model, but if you want to fix the 
root cause you'll have to go deeper than language choice right?  You might have 
other tradeoffs but the core problem here isn't just type safety.

Just like in the HTML example.  The core problem is that the language/format 
mixes code and data with no way to differentiate between them.

Or is my brain working too slowly today?

___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] Online Secure Development Training?

2009-03-25 Thread Brad Andrews

Thanks for all the replies.  I did want to emphasize that I am  
specifically looking for CBT versions of courses, not the  
instructor-led variety.  Someone asked me about what was available and  
I said I would ask around.  I have only seen the instructor-led ones  
myself.

Thanks for all the replies!  :)

Brad
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] BSIMM: Confessions of a Software SecurityAlchemist(informIT)

2009-03-25 Thread Andy Steingruebl
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:18 AM, ljknews ljkn...@mac.com wrote:


 Worry about enforcement by the hardware architecture after
 you have squeezed out all errors that can be addressed by
 software techniques.\


Larry,

Given the focus we've seen fro Microsoft and protecting developers from
mistakes through things like DEP, ASLR, SEH, etc. why do you think that
these can't be done in parallel?  I mean, we used to not have Virtual Memory
or real MMUs and the developer had to make sure they didn't step on other
people's pages.  Hardware support for protection on pages has helped with a
lot of things right?

I'm not saying I'm holding out hope for hardware to solve all our problems
(that would be silly) but I do think it can be fairly useful for some
classes of problems and a lot more scalable/repeatable.  Practical right
now, no.  But we're sort of in the realm of fantasy in this discussion
already if we think the general mass of people writing software are going to
switch languages because certain ones are more reliable

- Andy
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___


Re: [SC-L] BSIMM: Confessions of a Software SecurityAlchemist(informIT)

2009-03-25 Thread ljknews
At 1:00 PM -0700 3/25/09, Andy Steingruebl wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:18 AM, ljknews
mailto:ljkn...@mac.comljkn...@mac.com wrote:


 Worry about enforcement by the hardware architecture after
 you have squeezed out all errors that can be addressed by
 software techniques.\


 Larry,

 Given the focus we've seen fro Microsoft and protecting developers from
 mistakes through things like DEP, ASLR, SEH, etc. why do you think that
 these can't be done in parallel?

I don't know any of those acronyms, and I have very little to
do with Microsoft.  The last software of theirs I bought was
Microsoft Word V5.1a, the last one _before_ they introduced
Macro viruses.

I mean, we used to not have Virtual
Memory or real MMUs and the developer had to make sure they didn't step on
other people's pages.  Hardware support for protection on pages has helped
with a lot of things right?

Yes, but for me that was prior to 1978, and the benefit of
hardware protection pales by comparison to the benefit of
not programming everything in assembly language.

 I'm not saying I'm holding out hope for hardware to solve all our
problems (that would be silly) but I do think it can be fairly useful for
some classes of problems and a lot more scalable/repeatable.  
Practical
right now, no.  But we're sort of in the realm of fantasy in this
discussion already if we think the general mass of people writing software
are going to switch languages because certain ones are more reliable

I don't expect programmers to make that decision - I expect
astute management to make that decision (wherever astute
management happens to surface).

Management has a lot easier time changing languages than
changing hardware architectures.  Sometimes the hardware
is even dictated by the customer (such as when trying to
sell into a particular market).
-- 
Larry Kilgallen
___
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
___