Tag Archives: security testing

JavaScript in an HREF or SRC Attribute

The anchor (<a>) HTML tag is commonly used to provide a clickable link for a user to navigate to another page. Did you know it is also possible to set the HREF attribute to execute JavaScript. A common technique is to use the onclick event of the anchor tab to execute a JavaScript method when the user clicks the link. However, to stop the browser from actually redirecting the HREF can be set to javascript:void(0);. This cancels the HREF functionality and allows the JavaScript from the onclick to execute as expected.

In the above example, notice that the HREF is set with a value starting with “javascript:”. This identifier tells the browser to execute the code following that prefix. For those that are security savvy, you might be thinking about cross-site scripting when you hear about executing JavaScript within the browser. For those of you that are new to security, cross-site scripting refers to the ability for an attacker to execute unintended JavaScript in the context of your application (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-site_Scripting_(XSS)).

I want to walk through a simple scenario of where this could be abused. In this scenario, the application will attempt to track the page the user came from to set up where the Cancel button will redirect to. Imagine you have a list page that allows you to view details of a specific item. When you click the item it takes you to that item page and passes a BackUrl in the query string. So the link may look like:

https://developsec.com/item.php?backUrl=/items.php

On the page, there is a hyperlink created that sets the HREF to the backUrl property, like below:

<a href=”<?php echo $_GET[“backUrl”];?>”>Back</a>

When the page executes as expected you should get an output like this:

<a href=”/items.php”>Back</a>

There is a big problem though. The application is not performing any type of output encoding to protect against cross-site scripting. If we instead pass in backUrl=”%20onclick=”alert(10); we will get the following output:

<a href=”” onclick=”alert(10);“>Back</a>

In the instance above, we have successfully inserted the onclick event by breaking out of the HREF attribute. The bold section identifies the malicious string we added. When this link is clicked it will prompt an alert box with the number 10.

To remedy this, we could (or typically) use output encoding to block the escape from the HREF attribute. For example, if we can escape the double quotes (” -> " then we cannot get out of the HREF attribute. We can do this (in PHP as an example) using htmlentities() like this:

<a href=”<?php echo htmlentities($_GET[“backUrl”],ENT_QUOTES);?>”>Back</a>

When the value is rendered the quotes will be escapes like the following:

<a href=”" onclick=&"alert(10);“>Back</a>

Notice in this example, the HREF actually has the entire input (in bold), rather than an onclick event actually being added. When the user clicks the link it will try to go to https://www.developsec.com/” onclick=”alert(10); rather than execute the JavaScript.

But Wait… JavaScript

It looks like we have solved the XSS problem, but there is a piece still missing. Remember at the beginning of the post how we mentioned the HREF supports the javascript: prefix? That will allow us to bypass the current encodings we have performed. This is because with using the javascript: prefix, we are not trying to break out of the HREF attribute. We don’t need to break out of the double quotes to create another attribute. This time we will set backUrl=javascript:alert(11); and we can see how it looks in the response:

<a href=”javascript:alert(11);“>Back</a>

When the user clicks on the link, the alert will trigger and display on the page. We have successfully bypassed the XSS protection initially put in place.

Mitigating the Issue

There are a few steps we can take to mitigate this issue. Each has its pros and many can be used in conjunction with each other. Pick the options that work best for your environment.

URL Encoding – Since the HREF is meant to be a URL, you could perform URL encoding. URL encoding will render the javascript benign in the above instances because the colon (:) will get encoded. You should be using URL encoding for URLs anyway, right?
Implement Content Security Policy (CSP) – CSP can help limit the ability for inline scripts to be executed. In this case, it is an inline script so something as simple as ‘Content-Security-Policy:default-src ‘self’ could be sufficient. Of course, implementing CSP requires research and great care to get it right for your application.
Validate the URL – It is a good idea to validate that the URL used is well formed and pointing to a relative path. If the system is unable to parse the URL then it should not be used and a default back URL can be substituted.
URL White Listing – Creating a white list of valid URLs for the back link can be effective at limiting what input is used by the end user. This can cut down on the values that are actually returned blocking any malicious scripts.
Remove javascript: – This really isn’t recommended as different encodings can make it difficult to effectively remove the string. The other techniques listed above are much more effective.

The above list is not exhaustive, but does give an idea of ways to help reduce the risk of JavaScript within the HREF attribute of a hyper link.

Iframe SRC

It is important to note that this situation also applies to the IFRAME SRC attribute. it is possible to set the SRC of an IFRAME using the javascript: notation. In doing so, the javascript executes when the page is loaded.

Wrap Up

When developing applications, make sure you take this use case into consideration if you are taking URLs from user supplied input and setting that in an anchor tag or IFrame SRC.

If you are responsible for testing applications, take note when you identify URLs in the parameters. Investigate where that data is used. If you see it is used in an anchor tag, look to see if it is possible to insert JavaScript in this manner.

For those performing static analysis or code review, look for areas where the HREF or SRC attributes are set with untrusted data and make sure proper encoding has been applied. This is less of a concern if the base path of the URL has been hard-coded and the untrusted input only makes up parameters of the URL. These should still be properly encoded.

Understanding Your Application Platform

Leave a reply

Building applications today includes the use of some pretty impressive platforms. These platforms have so much built in capability, many of the most common tasks are easily accomplished through simple method calls. As developers, we rely on these frameworks to provide a certain level of functionality. Much of which we may never even use.

When it comes to security, the platform can be a love/hate relationship. On the one hand, developers may have little control over how the platform handles certain tasks. On the other, the platform may provide excellent security controls. As we mature these platforms, we see a lot of new, cool security features enabled by default. Many view engines have cross-site scripting protections built in by default. Many of the systems use ORM to help reduce SQL Injection vulnerabilities. The problem we often run into is we don’t really know what our platform does and does not provide.

A question was posed about what was the most secure application platform, or which would you recommend. The problem to that question is that the answer really is “It depends.” The frameworks are not all created equally. Some have better XSS preventions. Others may have default CSRF prevention. What a framework does or doesn’t have can also change next month. They are always being updated. Rather than pick the most secure platform, I recommend to people to take the time to understand your platform of choice.

Does it matter if you use PHP, Java, .Net, Python, or Ruby? They all have some built in features, they all have their downfalls. So rather than trying to swap platforms every time a new one gets better features, spend some time to understand the platform you have in front of you. When you understand the risks that you face, you can then determine how those line up with your platform. Do you output user input to a web browser? If so, cross site scripting is a concern. Determine how your platform handles that. It may be that the platform auto encodes that data for you. The encoding may only happen in certain contexts. it may be the platform doesn’t provide any encoding, but rather leaves that up to you.

While the secure by default is more secure, as it reduces the risk of human oversight, applications can still be very secure without it. This is where that understanding comes into play. If I understand my platform and know that it doesn’t encode for me then I must make the effort to protect that. This may even include creating your own function or library that is used enterprise wide to help solve the problem. Unfortunately, when you don’t understand your platform, you never realize that this is a step you must take. Then it is overlooked and you are vulnerable.

I am also seeing more platforms starting to provide security guidelines or checklists to help developers with secure implementation. They may know of areas the platform doesn’t create a protection, so they show how to get around that. Maybe something is not enabled by default, but they recommend and show how to enable that. The more content like this that is produced the more we will understand how to securely create applications.

Whatever platform you use, understanding it will make the most difference. If the platform doesn’t have good documentation, push for it. Ask around or even do the analysis yourself to understand how security works in your situations.

Using the AWS disruption to your advantage

Leave a reply

By now you have heard of the amazon issues that plagued many websites a few days ago. I want to talk about one key part of the issue that often gets overlooked. If you read through their message describing their service disruption (https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/) you will notice a section where they discuss some changes to the tools they use to manage their systems.

So let’s take a step back for a moment. Amazon attributed the service disruption to basically a simple mistake when executing a command. Although following an established playbook, something was entered incorrectly, leading to the disruption. I don’t want to get into all the details about the disruption, but rather, lets fast forward to considering the tools that are used.

Whether we are developing applications for external use or tools used to manage our systems, we don’t always think about all the possible threat scenarios. Sure, we think about some of the common threats and put in some simple safeguards, but what about some of those more detailed issues.

In this case, the tools allowed manipulating sub-systems that shouldn’t have been possible. It allowed shutting systems down too quickly, which caused some issues. This is no different than many of the tools that we write. We understand the task and create something to make it happen. But then our systems get more complicated. They pull in other systems which have access to yet other systems. A change to something directly accessible has an effect on a system 3 hops away.

Now, the chances of this edge case from happening are probably pretty slim. The chances that this case was missed during design is pretty good. Especially if you are not regularly reassessing your systems. What may have not been possible 2 years ago when the system was created is now possible today.

Even with Threat Modeling and secure design, things change. If the tool isn’t being updated, then the systems it controls are. We must have the ability to learn from these situations and identify how we can apply them to our own situations. How many tools have you created that can control your systems where a simple wrong click or incorrect parameter can create a huge headache. Do you even understand your systems well enough to know if doing something too fast or too slow can cause a problem. What about the effect of shutting one machine down has on any other machines. Are there warning messages for things that may have adverse effects? Are there safeguards in place of someone doing something out of the norm?

We are all busy and going back through working systems isn’t a high priority. These tools/systems may require an addition of new features, which makes for a perfect time to reassess it. Like everything in security, peripheral vision is very important. When working on one piece, it is always good to peek at other code around it. Take the time to verify that everything is up to date and as expected. Not any changes and determine if any enhancements or redesign is in order. Most of the time, these are edge case scenarios, but they can have a big impact if they occur.

Jardine Software helps companies get more value from their application security programs. Let’s talk about how we can help you.

James Jardine is the CEO and Principal Consultant at Jardine Software Inc. He has over 15 years of combined development and security experience. If you are interested in learning more about Jardine Software, you can reach him at james@jardinesoftware.com or @jardinesoftware on twitter.

Introducing our Slack channel

Leave a reply

It is a new year and time for some new ways for all of us to communicate. We appreciate all that have read the posts and listened to the podcast. Both of these will continue to move forward in 2017 with some new material on the way.

We are happy to announce we have started a Slack channel. You can find it at developsec.slack.com. The blog and podcasts have been great in providing information in a read-only manner. Slack is an opportunity to open up more conversation and create more dialog. A chance for us all to share stories and work out problems.

The channel is dedicated to application security topics. This means web, mobile, IoT, and whatever else is running applications. The goal is to provide a mechanism to bring application security into our everyday life. If you are interested in being a part of the DevelopSec Slack group, just drop me a line at james@jardinesoftware.com. I will send you out an invite.

DevelopSec encourages developers, business analysts, QA, and other application team members to take part in this great new opportunity.

Here is to 2017. A new year with new opportunities. As always, feel free to reach out to discuss AppSec.

Insulin Pump Vulnerability – Take-aways

Leave a reply

It was recently announced that there were a few vulnerabilities found with some insulin pumps that could allow a remote attacker to cause the pump to distribute more insulin than expected. There is a great write up of the situation here. When I say remote attack, keep in mind that in this scenario, it is someone that is within close proximity to the device. This is not an attack that can be performed via the Internet.

This situation creates an excellent learning opportunity for anyone that is creating devices, or that have devices already on the market. Let’s walk through a few key points from the article.

The Issue

The issue at hand was that the device didn’t perform strong authentication and that the communication between the remote and the device was not encrypted. Keep in mind that this device was rolled out back in 2008. Not to say that encryption wasn’t an option 8 years ago, for these types of devices it may not have been as main stream. We talk a lot about encryption today. Whether it is for IoT devices, mobile applications or web applications, the message is the same: Encrypt the communication channel. This doesn’t mean that encryption solves every problem, but it is a control that can be very effective in certain situations.

This instance is not the only one we have seen with unencrypted communications that allowed remote execution. It wasn’t long ago that there were computer mice and keyboards that also had the same type of problem. It also won’t be the last time we see this.

Take the opportunity to look at what you are creating and start asking the question regarding communication encryption and authentication. We are past the time where we can make the assumption the protocol can’t be reversed, or it needs special equipment. If you have devices in place currently, go back and see what you are doing. Is it secure? Could it be better? Are there changes we need to make. If you are creating new devices, make sure you are thinking about these issues. Communications is high on the list for all devices for security vulnerabilities. Make sure it is considered.

The Hype, or Lack of

I didn’t see a lot of extra hype over the disclosure of this issue. Often times, in security, we have a tendency to exaggerate things a bit. I didn’t see that here and I like it. At the beginning of this post I mentioned the attack is remote, but still requires close physical proximity. Is it an issue: Yes. is it a hight priority issue: Depends on functionality achieved. As a matter of fact, the initial post about the vulnerabilities states they don’t believe it is cause for panic and the risk of wide scale exploitation is relatively low. Given the circumstances, I would agree. They even go on to say they would still use this device for their children. I believe this is important because it highlights that there is risk in everything we do, and it is our responsibility to understand and choose to accept it.

The Response

Johnson and Johnson released an advisory to their customers alerting them of the issues. In addition, they provided potential options if these customers were concerned over the vulnerabilities. You might expect that the response would downplay the risk, but I didn’t get that feeling. They list the probability as extremely low. I don’t think there is dishonesty here. The statement is clear and understandable. The key component is the offering of some mitigations. While these may provide some inconvenience, it is positive to know there are options available to help further reduce the risk.

Attitude and Communication

It is tough to tell by reading some articles about a situation, but it feels like the attitudes were positive throughout the process. Maybe I am way off, but let’s hope that is true. As an organization it is important to be open to input from 3rd parties when it comes to the security of our devices. In many cases, the information is being provided to help, not be harmful. If you are the one receiving the report, take the time to actually read and understand it before jumping to conclusions.

As a security tester, it is important for the first contact to be a positive one. This can be difficult if you have had bad experiences in the past, but don’t judge everyone based on previous experiences. When the communication starts on a positive note, the chances are better it will continue that way. Starting off with a negative attitude can bring a disclosure to a screeching halt.

Conclusion

We are bound to miss things when it comes to security. In fact, you may have made a decision that years down the road will turn out to be incorrect. Maybe it wasn’t at the time, but technology changes quickly. We can’t just write off issues, we must understand them. Understand the risk and determine the proper course of action. Being prepared for the unknown can be difficult, but keeping a level head and honest will make these types of engagements easier to handle.

Jardine Software helps companies get more value from their application security programs. Let’s talk about how we can help you.

Login Forms and HTTP

Leave a reply

Does your application have a login form? Do you deliver it over HTTPS to protect the username and password while being transmitted to the server? If you answered yes to both of those questions, are you sure?

Many years ago, before there was a huge push for HTTPS all the time, it was common practice for many applications to load a login form using HTTP, but then submit the form over HTTPS. This was accomplished by setting the action attribute of the form to the full HTTPS version of the site.

There was a flaw in this setup. The flaw is not even with the submission of your credentials. Instead, the issue is how that login form is initially loaded. Remember we said that the initial request was HTTP? The belief was that because the loading of the form doesn’t transmit any sensitive data, it would be ok to use HTTP. You could even take a trip back to the performance wars during that time stating that HTTP was much faster to load. (We learned a lot of the years).

The problem is that if there is a malicious user (attacker) on your same network that is able to redirect your traffic through them they could manipulate the initial load of the page. Imagine if the attacker intercepted your request to the login page (initial load) and changed the action of the form to a different site?

Notice how the new form submission will go to a different site, not even using HTTPS. From the end user’s point of view they wouldn’t even know the form was going to send their credentials to a different site.

Over the years, we have seen the use of this methodology shrinking down. Many sites are now loading their login forms all over HTTPS. As a matter of fact, many sites are 100% HTTPS.

But Wait!!

There is another angle to this that is often overlooked, but works very similar. Does your site allow it to be loaded into frames? I have seen a lot of sites that have been including another application’s login form using either frame sets or frames. The issue, the container site is often a simple marketing or branding site and runs over HTTP.

Like the above example, the HTTP site is including a frame reference to an HTTPS site. Again, the login form submission is still correct. However, it is possible that the attacker from the previous scenario could intercept the containing page and change the reference for the login frame. In this case, the attacker would most likely create a page that is identical to the real login form and point the frame to that one. The user would have no idea that the authentication page was incorrect, because it would look like the original. When the user submits their credentials, they would then be submitted to the malicious user instead of the real site.

It is recommended to not allow your site to be hosted within a sub frame. There are plenty of articles that discuss frame busting techniques and you could look into the X-Frame-Options header as well. If your form doesn’t load in a frame then your risk of being included on a non-secure site is reduced. For all other scenarios, there isn’t a lot of reason to not be using HTTPS from end to end. By securing all of the transactions, it reduces the risk that an attacker can easily manipulate that traffic.

Understanding the “Why”

Leave a reply

If I told you to adjust your seat before adjusting your mirror in your car, would you just do it? Just because I said so, or do you understand why there is a specific order? Most of us retain concepts better when we can understand them logically.

Developing applications requires a lot of moving pieces. An important piece in that process is implementing security controls to help protect the application, the company, and the users. In many organizations, security is heavily guided by an outside group, i.e.. the security group or 3rd party testers.

Looking at an external test, or even a test by an internal security team, often the result is a report containing findings. These findings typically include a recommendation to guide the application team in a direction to help reduce or mitigate the finding. In my experience, the recommendations tend to be pretty generic. For example, a username harvesting flaw may come with a recommendation to return the same message for both valid and invalid user names. In most cases, this is a valid recommendation as it is the reason for the flaw.

But Why? Why does it matter?

Working with application teams, it quickly becomes clear the level of understanding regarding security topics. The part that is often missing is the Why. Sure, the team can implement a generic message (using the username harvesting flaw above) and it may solve the finding. But does it solve the real issue? What are the chances that when you come back and test another app for this same development team that the flaw may exist somewhere else? When we take the time to really explain why this finding is a concern, how it can be abused, and start discussing ways to mitigate it, the team gets better. Push aside the “sky is falling” and take the time to understand the application and context.

As security professionals we focus too much on fixing a vulnerability. Don’t get me wrong, the vulnerability should be fixed, but we are too focused. Taking a step back allows us to see a better approach. It is much more than just identifying flaws. It is about getting the application teams to understand why they are flaws (not just because security said so) so they become a consideration in future development. This includes the entire application team, not just developers. Lets look at another example.

An Example

Let’s say that you have a change password form that doesn’t require the current password. As a security professional, your wheels are probably spinning. Thinking about issues like CSRF. From a development side, the typical response “Why do I need to input my password when I just did that to login to change my password?” While the change will most likely get made, because security said it had too, there is still a lack of understanding from the application team. If CSRF was your first reason, what if they have CSRF protections already in place? Do you have another reason? What about if the account is hijacked somehow, or a person sits at the user’s desk and they forgot to lock their PC? By explaining the reasoning behind the requirement, it starts to make sense and is better received. It dominos into a chance that the next project that is developed will take this into consideration.

When the business analysts sits down to write the next change password user story, it will be a part of it. Not because security said so, but because they understand the use case better and how to protect it.

If you are receiving test results, take the time to make sure you understand the findings and the WHY. It will help providing a learning objective as well as reduce the risk of not correcting the problem. Understand how the issue and remediation effects your application and users.

Originally posted at https://www.jardinesoftware.com

ImageMagick – Take-aways

Leave a reply

Do your applications accept file uploads? More specifically, image uploads? Do you use a site that allows you to upload images? If you haven’t been following the news lately, there was recently a few vulnerabilities found in the ImageMagick image library. This library is very common in websites to perform image processing. The vulnerability allows remote code execution (RCE) on the web server, which is very dangerous. For more specific details on the vulnerability itself, check out this post on the Sucuri Blog.

There are a few things I wanted to focus on that are less about ImageMagick and more focused on better security solutions.

Application Inventory

I know, enough already. I get it, I mention application inventory all the time. It is with good reason. We rely heavily on 3rd part components just like ImageMagick and there are bound to be security flaws identified in them. Some may be less critical, while others demanding the highest priority. The issue at hand is that we cannot defend against the unknown. In this case, even if we are aware of a vulnerability, it doesn’t help us if we are not aware we use the vulnerable component. Time is important, especially when it comes to critical type issues. You need to be able to quickly determine if your company uses the vulnerable component, which apps are effected, and what types of data resides in those systems. Performing fire drills for every vulnerability announced is very inefficient. Being able to quickly identify the effected areas allows for a better understanding of any risk changes.

Permissions

When you are configuring your applications, think about the type of permissions the application has on the server. Does it have the ability to write to specific folders, execute specific files, read data, etc.? Does the application run as an administrator with full rights? To help reduce the attack surface we must understand what the app needs to do, and then make sure the permissions are aligned with those needs. In this case, the files may be stored on the file system to be used later so write permissions may be required. It is still possible to limit those write permissions to specific folders and even limiting execution permissions.

Application Configuration

How you design and configure your application plays a significant role in how security is handled. In regards to allowing file uploads, how do you handle storing the files? Are they on the file system or in the database? How are features configured? In the case of ImageMagick, there are configuration settings that can be set to limit the vulnerabilities. Make sure that you are only accepting file types that are needed and discarding others. These configurations can take many forms, but will help provide security when they are truly understood.

Importance of Input Validation

The vulnerability in ImageMagick highlights the importance of sanitizing input and performing solid validation. In this case, the file name is not properly handled which allows an attacker to run unintended commands. We have to check to make sure that the data passed to our applications is what we are expecting. If it is not, then it must be discarded.

This is not the last time we will see a vulnerable component that is used by lots of applications. It is part of the risk of using external components. We can do more on our side to make sure that we know what we are using and preparing for the event that something goes wrong. Take the time to understand your applications and think about the different ways security may be effected.

Reliance on 3rd Party Components

Leave a reply

It was just recently announced that Apple will no longer be supporting QuickTime for Windows. Just like any other software, when support has ended, the software becomes a security risk. As a matter of fact, there are current known vulnerabilities in QuickTime that will never get patched. The Department of Homeland Security has an alert recommending removal of QuickTime for Windows.

For users, it may seem simple: Uninstall QuickTime from your Windows system. But wait.. what about software they rely on that may require quicktime? There are times when our users are locked into some technologies because of the software we create. How does our decision to use a specific technology have an effect on our end users when it comes to security?

If you have created an application that relies on the installation of QuickTime for Windows this creates somewhat of an issue. It can be very difficult to justify your position to end users to continue using a component that is not only known vulnerable, but is also past the end of life. This brings up a few things to consider when using third party components in our solutions.

Why use the component/technology?

The first question to ask is why do we need this component or technology. Is this a small feature within our application or does our entire business model rely on this. What benefit are we getting by using this component. Are there multiple components by different sources? What process was used to pick the used component? Did you look at the history of the creator, the reviews from other users, how active development is, etc.? When picking a component, more is required than just picking the one with the prettiest marketing page.

How do we handle Updates?

The number of breaches and security vulnerabilities documented is at an all time high. You need to be prepared for the event that there are updates, most likely critical, to the component. How will you handle these updates. What type of process will be in place to make sure that the application is compatible with all of these updates so the user is not forced to use an out-dated version? What would you do if the update removed a critical feature your application relies upon?

What if the component is discontinued?

Handling the updates and patches is one thing, but what happens if the component becomes end of life? When the component is no longer supported there is a greater possibility of security risks around it that will not get fixed. In most situations this will probably lead to the decision to stop using that component. I know, this seems like something we don’t want to think about, but it is critical that all of these possibilities are understood.

We use components in almost any software that we create. We rely on these components. Taking the time to create a process around how these components are selected and how they are maintained will help reduce headache later on. We often focus on the now, forgetting about what may happen tomorrow. Take the time to think about how the component is maintained going forward and how it would effect your business if it went away one day. Will you ask your users to continue using a known vulnerable component, or will you have a plan to make the necessary changes to no longer rely on that component?

When One Testing Solution Isn’t Enough

Leave a reply

Go to any conference, attend some webinars, or just do a search for application security testing solutions and you can quickly see the sheer number of solutions out there. As in every situation, there are some that are great and some that are not so great. With such great marketing, it is often very difficult to determine what is the best solution. All too often people are looking for that silver bullet. That one testing tool or pen testing company that will find everything. Unfortunately, that solution doesn’t exist, or I just haven’t seen it.

Application testing usually falls into two categories: Automated scanning and manual assessments. To break that down further, automated scanning is broken down into two disciplines: Static and dynamic.

Static Analysis

Static scanning means that code is scanned without running it. Here is a quick post about static analyzers. Inputs are traced through the code to see what paths are taken and determine vulnerabilities. Static scans can be efficient at finding flaws such as cross-site scripting, injection flaws, configuration issues, etc. Static scans excel at finding code issues like hard coded passwords, cryptography issues, and other items not possible through a dynamic or manual test. They still do not do very well at finding business logic flaws which can be the most devastating.

Dynamic Analysis

Dynamic scanning means that the application is scanned as it is running. Unlike a static scan, it can be very difficult to identify hard coded passwords or cryptographic issues because they are not visible to the end user. Dynamic scans do a decent job of identifying other flaws such as cross-site scripting, injection flaws, insecure cookies, and some other configuration issues to name a few. Dynamic scanners do not do a good job identifying authentication, authorization, or business logic flaws in general. Properly tuned scanners may be able to do this, but that requires extra work.

Manual Assessments

Manual assessments are mostly a manual process of analyzing source code or using the application to find security flaws. Source code review, has many advantages of the static scanning mentioned above. Penetration testing is very similar to the dynamic scanning mentioned. In both cases, the testing is done manually vs. using just an automated tool. Manual assessments (pen tests) are much more efficient at finding authentication, authorization and business logic flaw types. Of course the quality of the assessment is heavily influenced by the skill of the person doing the assessment.

Some of the big vendors have started offering all three types of assessment for their customers. The big players (White Hat Security, VeraCode, HP, etc.) all offer static, dynamic and manual assessments for your applications. And with good reason. If you have worked in an enterprise where you are required to have multiple assessments by different groups you quickly realize how nothing provides a complete solution. Each assessment paints a portion of the security picture. Items found by one may not be found by the other. In some instances you may think that two should have found the same item, but that is the nature of security.. No one finds everything.

Multiple Solutions

While you may think that it is overkill to have multiple scanning solutions or testers looking at an application, they all bring a different viewpoint and help identify different types of vulnerabilities. Sort of like an enhanced second pair of eyes. Not only can they double check the work the other has done, but in may situations they can identify different types of vulnerabilities. Not only do different solutions find different vulnerabilities, they also find them at different phases of the development lifecycle. It is common to use the static scanners in the development phase. Dynamic scanners are more commonly seen in the verification phase. Manual assessments, especially 3rd party penetration testers, are also in the verification phase, but near the end of the cycle. The closer to development a flaw is found, the quicker it is to remediate it.

The right solution is the one that fits your environment. Take the time to analyze your setup to determine the best way to implement a solution. These solutions take time and should be carefully considered.