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

6/16/2017
10:30 AM
Rohit Sethi
Rohit Sethi
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Why Your AppSec Program Is Doomed to Fail & How to Save It

With these measures in place, organizations can avoid common pitfalls.

Organizations need to put more time, resources, and care into building and implementing their application security programs. In a recent survey we conducted of 28 large, mostly North American financial institutions, 75% of respondents stated that they regarded application security as a high or critical priority. Problems arise when organizations act on this threat.

According to the same survey, most companies allowed serious risks to persist in their application security practices, such as failing to apply proper standards to third-party software vendors, relying heavily or completely on insufficient scanning tools to find vulnerabilities, and focusing on the wrong metrics to judge the success of their application security programs.  

Here is a list of common reasons why many application security programs fail:

Reason #1: Organizational Structure and Incentives
A widely overlooked but serious problem is that businesses motivate security executives in a way that is not conducive to good application security. In a broad sense, executives are pressured to move quickly and see risk management as inhibiting. As a safeguard, security leaders at many enterprises tie compensation to risk management.

In practice, holistic application security rarely bubbles up to executive pay because it's lost as technical noise. Another systematic defense that organizations often apply is the three lines of defense model: frontline management, risk management (including information security), and an internal audit. Application security is often poorly understood by internal auditors, which inherently lowers its priority for frontline management. 

Reason #2: Using the Wrong Security Framework
When organizations choose the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (which doesn't cover application security at all; instead, it talks more broadly about identifying risks) or ISO 27001 (which has only two controls that relate to secure development) as their baseline, they get negligible coverage for software security, not commensurate with the risk that insecure software poses to the business. Even for firms that don't build software, software developed by third parties in the form of web, mobile, desktop, and embedded device apps carry significant risk.

Check out the all-star panels at the 'Understanding Cyber Attackers & Cyber Threats' event June 21 and get an in-depth look at your cyber adversaries. Click here to register. 

There are more comprehensive frameworks designed specifically for securing software. Take the ISO 27034, which isn't well understood by security practitioners. It describes how to build security controls into software. This isn't how most organizations are securing software. Instead, they perform penetration testing, static analysis, and dynamic analysis. They are performing tests at scale, rather than also building security into the development life cycle.

Reason #3: Development Teams Won't Buy In
Without strong incentives, information security teams fail to sell a secure software development life cycle (SDLC) program to business units. As the logic goes, by building security in, you won't have to scramble to fix vulnerabilities later. This logic appeals to the highest levels, such as the CTO, but usually fails in practice. Development teams are almost perennially behind their feature development goals. It's never a good time to add more overhead to their process. By adopting new security controls — which they are not financially motivated to do — the development teams risk not being able to meet their much more tangible goals of delivering business functionality.

The pragmatic CISO, trying to balance risk and reward, then looks at the secure SDLC initiative, which is fraught with resistance and hardship, and decides to redeploy the security team to more pressing and easier-to-solve issues. The secure SDLC becomes a low priority, ranking 14 out of 17 on average, according to a survey by SANS.

How to Avoid Common Application Security Program Failures
The problems above play out regularly at firms that are looking to start a holistic application security program. A company in the early phases of a secure SDLC initiative can do the following:

  • Educate the organization about insecure software. Don't just focus on web applications. Think about all software in an organization, including third-party products. Educate executives, management, engineering teams, and the internal audit team.
  • Recognize gaps in security frameworks. Point out that there is a wide gap in most broad information security frameworks in the areas of in-house and third-party software security. Agree to adopt a more rigorous framework for this process, such as the ISO 27034, Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle, or the Vendor Building Security In Maturity Model. 
  • Find the right metrics. Don't settle for vulnerability counts as a key metric for success. Where possible, use quantitative metrics. Use the model from the ISO 27034: identify controls, implement them, and then validate them so that you don't just rely on testing. Adopt a software security requirements management platform and/or threat modeling tool to help achieve this goal at scale.

With these measures in place, organizations can avoid the common pitfalls of doomed application security programs in favor of implementing security requirements across the entire software process.

Related Content:

Rohit Sethi, COO of Security Compass, is responsible for setting and achieving corporate objectives, company alignment, and driving strategy to execution. He specializes in software security requirements management (SSRM), working with large companies in various industries to ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
Mobile App Fraud Jumped in Q1 as Attackers Pivot from Browsers
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  7/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
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
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15105
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
CVE-2020-11061
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
CVE-2020-4042
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
CVE-2020-11081
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
CVE-2020-6114
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...