+V-ST-2-A Develop application-specific security test cases

V-ST-2-A Develop application-specific security test cases

Maturity level 2 objective of the practice: Make security testing during development more complete and efficient through automation complemented with regular manual security penetration tests.

Benefit: Detection of organization-specific easy-to-find vulnerabilities

Short description: Employ application-specific security testing automation.

Increase the effectiveness of automated security testing tools by tuning and customizing them for your particular technology stacks and applications. Automated security testing tools have two important characteristics: Their false positive rate, i.e. the non-existent bugs and vulnerabilities they incorrectly report; their false negative rate, i.e. actual bugs and vulnerabilities which they fail to detect. As you mature in your use of automated testing tools, you strive to minimize their false positive and false negative rates. This maximizes the time development teams spend reviewing and addressing real security issues in their applications, and reduces the friction typically associated with using untuned automated security analysis tools.

Start by disabling tool support for technologies and frameworks you do not use and target specific versions where possible. This will increase execution speed and reduce the number of spurious results reported. Rely on security tool champions or shared security teams to pilot the tools in coordination with a select group of motivated development teams. This will identify likely false positive findings to ignore or remove from the tools' output. Identify specific security issues and anti-patterns and favor the best tool for detecting them.

Leverage available tool features to take application-specific and organizational coding styles, as well as technical standards into account. Many automated static analysis tools allow users to write their own rules or customize default analysis rules to the specific software interfaces in the project under test for improved accuracy and depth of coverage. For example, potentially dangerous input (aka tainted) can be marked as safe after it flows through a designated custom sanitization method.

Strategically, it is better to reliably detect a limited subset of security issues via automated tooling, and incrementally extend coverage than attempting to detect all known issues immediately. Once the tools have been sufficiently tuned, they can be made available to a more development teams. It is important to continuously monitor their perceived efficacy among development teams. In more advanced forms, machine learning techniques can be adopted to identify and automatically filter out likely false positives at scale.

1. Przegląd

Tytuł Norma

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane regulacje

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

Wymagania
Źródło Wymaganie

3. Powiązane regulacje

Regulacje
Źródło Regulacja

Powiązane zgłoszenia

  • OWASP -

    EN: Publications of the OWASP Foundation, https://owasp.org/. OWASP® is a registered trademark of the OWASP Foundation, Inc.; GRCA is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, the OWASP Foundation. Only the versions published by OWASP are authoritative.

    DE: Veröffentlichungen der OWASP Foundation, https://owasp.org/. OWASP® ist eine eingetragene Marke der OWASP Foundation, Inc.; GRCA steht in keiner Verbindung zur OWASP Foundation und wird von ihr nicht unterstützt. Maßgeblich sind allein die von OWASP veröffentlichten Fassungen.