Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Application Security

10/5/2018
12:45 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

12 AppSec Activities Enterprises Can't Afford to Skip

The latest Building Security in Maturity Model (BSIMM9) report offers a statistically backed, bare-minimum benchmark for software security initiatives.
Previous
1 of 13
Next

Awareness continues to build for application security, the toolsets are evolving, and more organizations than ever have changed at least some of their processes to account for designing security into software. But the fact is that huge challenges still remain in delivering more secure software.

"The technology is often hard to use, introduces friction in automated processes, requires headcount to achieve the desired effectiveness, and improves much more slowly than software evolves. From a consumer perspective, the vendor marketplace is fragmented," says Sammy Migues, principal scientist for application security firm Synopsys. "Moreover, processes are in constant flux. There is debt in nearly every organization, with approaches built for waterfall ecosystems being molded into agile forms or DevOps shapes."

This industry condition provides the impetus for Synopsys' continuing drive to update the Building Security in Maturity Model (BSIMM), which endeavors to measure the use of major best (or, sometimes, bare minimum) practices in application security in use within large organizations. This week the firm released BSIMM9, which examines the use of 116 identified AppSec activities by 120 different firms. These activities are lumped into four major domains: Governance, Intelligence, Secure Software Development Lifecycle (SSDL) Touchpoints, and Deployment.

From there, they're further broken down into 12 major buckets of practice categories — this includes categories such as Strategy and Metrics, Attack Models, and Code Review. Each of these categories includes a number of activities that can be engaged in, from the very simple to the very complex and mature.

In examining activities with this context, BSIMM9 identified 12 activities that the majority of organizations typically engage in today. Most of them are very simple — meaning there's lots of room for improvement across the board — but they at least offer a glimpse into a simple benchmark for organizations as they look at their own internal practices.

"Although we can't directly conclude that these 12 activities are necessary for all software security initiatives, we can say with confidence that these activities are commonly found in highly successful initiatives," the BSIMM9 report states. "This suggests that if you are working on an initiative of your own, you should consider these 12 activities particularly carefully."

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Previous
1 of 13
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
lunny
50%
50%
lunny,
User Rank: Strategist
10/8/2018 | 11:39:27 AM
Identity?
Is anyone reading the endless stream of breach reports?  Identity - credential security, lifecycle management, attribution, and inventory?  Bueller?
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
9 Tips to Prepare for the Future of Cloud & Network Security
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  9/28/2020
Attacker Dwell Time: Ransomware's Most Important Metric
Ricardo Villadiego, Founder and CEO of Lumu,  9/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20902
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-01
Upgrading Crowd via XML Data Transfer can reactivate a disabled user from OpenLDAP. The affected versions are from before version 3.4.6 and from 3.5.0 before 3.5.1.
CVE-2019-20903
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-01
The hyperlinks functionality in atlaskit/editor-core in before version 113.1.5 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript via a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in link targets.
CVE-2020-25288
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-30
An issue was discovered in MantisBT before 2.24.3. When editing an Issue in a Project where a Custom Field with a crafted Regular Expression property is used, improper escaping of the corresponding form input's pattern attribute allows HTML injection and, if CSP settings permit, execution of arbitra...
CVE-2020-25781
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-30
An issue was discovered in file_download.php in MantisBT before 2.24.3. Users without access to view private issue notes are able to download the (supposedly private) attachments linked to these notes by accessing the corresponding file download URL directly.
CVE-2020-25830
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-30
An issue was discovered in MantisBT before 2.24.3. Improper escaping of a custom field's name allows an attacker to inject HTML and, if CSP settings permit, achieve execution of arbitrary JavaScript when attempting to update said custom field via bug_actiongroup_page.php.