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
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
GitHub Named in Capital One Breach Lawsuit
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2019
The Mainframe Is Seeing a Resurgence. Is Security Keeping Pace?
Ray Overby, Co-Founder & President at Key Resources, Inc.,  8/15/2019
The Flaw in Vulnerability Management: It's Time to Get Real
Jim Souders, Chief Executive Officer at Adaptiva,  8/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5034
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
An exploitable information disclosure vulnerability exists in the Weave Legacy Pairing functionality of Nest Cam IQ Indoor version 4620002. A set of specially crafted weave packets can cause an out of bounds read, resulting in information disclosure. An attacker can send packets to trigger this vuln...
CVE-2019-5035
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
An exploitable information disclosure vulnerability exists in the Weave PASE pairing functionality of the Nest Cam IQ Indoor, version 4620002. A set of specially crafted weave packets can brute force a pairing code, resulting in greater Weave access and potentially full device control. An attacker c...
CVE-2019-5036
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
An exploitable denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the Weave error reporting functionality of the Nest Cam IQ Indoor, version 4620002. A specially crafted weave packets can cause an arbitrary Weave Exchange Session to close, resulting in a denial of service. An attacker can send a specially cr...
CVE-2019-8103
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2017.011.30143 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2015.006.30497 and earlier, and 2015.006.30498 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation ...
CVE-2019-8104
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2017.011.30143 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2015.006.30497 and earlier, and 2015.006.30498 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation ...