Application Security
3/5/2014
09:18 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Securing Software Requires Design, Testing, And Improvement

Adopting secure development, incorporating frequent testing, and creating measures of software security are important to create more secure code

Software makers need to adopt secure development methodologies and make their processes more transparent to assure customers that security is a shared goal, experts told attendees at the RSA Conference in San Francisco last week.

RSA Conference 2014
Click here for more articles about the RSA Conference.

On a panel of vulnerability-assessment firms, software companies, and customers, speakers stressed that software developers should take the initiative, design for security from the start, frequently test their products, and communicate vulnerabilities and risks to the customer. While adding security to the development cycle is an expense, software makers should educate customers about the advantages of their secure software development, the panelists said.

Utilities, for example, do not necessarily know what is a good measure of security for software, so raising the topic with such firms makes security part of the procurement discussion, said panelist Nadya Bartol, senior cybersecurity strategist for the Utilities Telecom Council.

"The dialogue between those who buy software and those who supply software is a fledgling process," Bartol said. "So, for us, it's a question of how do we manage the risk of what we buy and ask the right set of questions?"

The Building Security In Maturity Model (BSIMM) is a good place to start, panelists said. The group behind BSIMM surveyed 67 real software security development processes, encompassing 112 different security activities, and organized them by the most common practices to the most rare. A developer looking to improve its software security process can use the document as a cookbook from which to take popular recipes for security.

[How can software developers build more secure applications? Here are five pitfalls to avoid. See The Five Most Common Security Pitfalls In Software Development.]

Yet establishing a secure methodology is not enough. While the panelists discussed the secure development process, the main focus of the discussion was ways of measuring software security -- not just as a customer requirement, but as an internal control. While developers need to be given clear guidelines for creating secure software, code has to be tested regularly to gauge how well the company is progressing with security, said Steven Lipner, director of software security at Microsoft

"It is not enough to have a process," Lipner said. "You have actually have to implement the process, and know you have implemented it."

In addition, communicating the state of software security is important, but can be conundrum for vendors, said Eric Baise, senior director in the product security office at EMC. Giving too much information about the security testing and state of a product could give attackers a guide of where to look for vulnerabilities, he said.

"The question for me is what characteristics of the software development process that we can measure and publish as a vendor, and share with our customers, that does not not put our customers at risk, but gives them the right information to practice proper risk management," Baise said.

In many ways, the process is similar to healthcare, the panelists concluded. Just because a person exercises does not mean he should not go to the doctor regularly, and just because he has an annual checkup does not mean he can stop exercising.

While software security, and showing that software development is secure, may seem to be a complex task, the security industry has taken on more difficult problems, said Chris Wysopal, co-founder and chief technology officer of Veracode.

"We do measure security, and if someone wants to see the third-party report for the security of an infrastructure, I would argue that that is more complex than the security of a single product," Wysopal said.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Robert Lemos is a veteran technology journalist of more than 16 years and a former research engineer, writing articles that have appeared in Business Week, CIO Magazine, CNET News.com, Computing Japan, CSO Magazine, Dark Reading, eWEEK, InfoWorld, MIT's Technology Review, ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
JasonSachowski
50%
50%
JasonSachowski,
User Rank: Author
3/28/2014 | 8:46:46 AM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Getting "top-down" buy-in is only as complicated as the way we communicate it.  This unfortunately stems back to how, for the most part, security professionals talk in terms of technical threats which does not neccessarily translate well into business logic.  Instead of communicating Software Security from a technical point of view, such as "We must enforce input validation to prevent against data type corruption and security vulnerabilities"; we could approach it from a business perspective based on risk, such as "Input validation provides assurance of business integrity, customer confidentiality, and application availability".

Security must be viewed as just another attribute of software, much like usability, performance, reliability, and scalability. With full participation of different stakeholders in a Secure-SDLC program, security risks can be identified both before deployment and during implementation, reducing the attack surface and strengthening defense-in-depth strategies. A "team approach" to secure software development will improve the software release, change, and configuration management processes, improving software deployment standards.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
3/27/2014 | 2:33:05 PM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Enabling that culture change is a terrific idea but certainly has many challenges -- not the least of which is getting buy in from the C-suite. In your experience, what are the most effective "top-down" executive poliices and practices that foster a proactive security mindset within an organization?
JasonSachowski
50%
50%
JasonSachowski,
User Rank: Author
3/27/2014 | 2:23:07 PM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Information Security cannot be the conscious of the business if we continue to focus on the flaws instead of identify solutions.  A good start to addressing this challenge would be to create a culture where we as Security professional bring forward what we know that helps to enable the business to operate securely; opposed to going around in circles asking what the business knows and creating barriers.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
3/27/2014 | 7:37:13 AM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Thanks for your comment Jason. If software security is typically not viewed as a part of an important business need, what do you think has to happen to make the industry take the issue more seriously?
JasonSachowski
50%
50%
JasonSachowski,
User Rank: Author
3/27/2014 | 7:16:55 AM
Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Software assurance (aka software security) is most often not viewed as a part of business needs.  This could be attributed back to how security has been traiditionally viewed as a "roadblock" or as mentioned above goes back to security not being strongly integrated throughout the SDLC processes.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
Managing the interdependency between software and infrastructure is a thorny challenge. Often, it’s a “developers are from Mars, systems engineers are from Venus” situation.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-2595
Published: 2014-08-31
The device-initialization functionality in the MSM camera driver for the Linux kernel 2.6.x and 3.x, as used in Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) Android contributions for MSM devices and other products, enables MSM_CAM_IOCTL_SET_MEM_MAP_INFO ioctl calls for an unrestricted mmap interface, which all...

CVE-2013-2597
Published: 2014-08-31
Stack-based buffer overflow in the acdb_ioctl function in audio_acdb.c in the acdb audio driver for the Linux kernel 2.6.x and 3.x, as used in Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) Android contributions for MSM devices and other products, allows attackers to gain privileges via an application that lever...

CVE-2013-2598
Published: 2014-08-31
app/aboot/aboot.c in the Little Kernel (LK) bootloader, as distributed with Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) Android contributions for MSM devices and other products, allows attackers to overwrite signature-verification code via crafted boot-image load-destination header values that specify memory ...

CVE-2013-2599
Published: 2014-08-31
A certain Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) patch to the NativeDaemonConnector class in services/java/com/android/server/NativeDaemonConnector.java in Code Aurora Forum (CAF) releases of Android 4.1.x through 4.3.x enables debug logging, which allows attackers to obtain sensitive disk-encryption pas...

CVE-2013-6124
Published: 2014-08-31
The Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) init scripts in Code Aurora Forum (CAF) releases of Android 4.1.x through 4.4.x allow local users to modify file metadata via a symlink attack on a file accessed by a (1) chown or (2) chmod command, as demonstrated by changing the permissions of an arbitrary fil...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
This episode of Dark Reading Radio looks at infosec security from the big enterprise POV with interviews featuring Ron Plesco, Cyber Investigations, Intelligence & Analytics at KPMG; and Chris Inglis & Chris Bell of Securonix.