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.

Risk

2/16/2010
05:42 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Proposal Would Hold Software Developers Accountable For Security Bugs

SANS releases Top 25 list of the most dangerous programming errors; joins with Mitre, others, to push for contract language that makes custom app developers liable for vulnerabilities

SANS' newly released Top 25 list of common programming flaws came with a little legal muscle, too, with representatives from SANs, Mitre, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, and other organizations pushing for custom software developers to be held liable for insecure code they write.

Experts from more than 30 U.S. and international organizations, including OWASP, Microsoft, Apple, EMC, Oracle, McAfee, and Symantec, contributed to the CWE/SANS Top 25 list. And procurement experts from some of the organizations are recommending standard contract language for procurements that would ensure buyers aren't held liable for software that contains security flaws. "Wherever a commercial entity or government agency asks someone to write software for them, there is now a way they can begin to make the suppliers of that software accountable for [security] problems," says Alan Paller, director of research for the SANS Institute.

Paller says the contract language would be based in part on a draft in the works by the State of New York (PDF) that refers to the SANS Top 25 and would make the state's custom-software vendors contractually bound to provide apps that are free of those bugs. Paller says although there is "no formal agreement on the language" among the group at this point, it's focused on the section of New York's proposed contract language that reads: "the Vendor shall, at a minimum, conduct a threat assessment and analysis of vulnerability information, including the current list of SANS 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors; provide the Purchaser with a written report as soon as possible after a vulnerability, threat, or risk has been identified."

He says some final tweaking of the language would ideally add a warranty for correcting secure-coding errors "at vendor expense."

Such a legal arrangement would not only protect customers of the software, Paller says, but also provide developers with a "safe harbor" of sorts. "What do I have to do to supply software that's safe enough so I don't get into legal problems with the customer?" he explains.

Joe Jarzombeck, director for software assurance for the national cybersecurity division at DHS, says any contract language would be voluntary. "There is no unified mandate," Jarzombeck says. And the Common Weaknesses Enumeration (CWE)/SANS Top 25 list is now being adopted by tool vendors as well, he notes.

"The [list is not to] say, 'Here's how to be 100 percent secure,' but to more definitive in the specific risks," he says.

For the buyer, making the vendor liable for security bugs would help protect its organization from potential breaches exploiting those flaws as well as prevent the vendor from charging them extra to fix them. And for developers, it's a "minimum standard of due care," SANS' Paller says.

But Gary McGraw, CTO of Cigital, whose company was involved with the project, says he predicts such an effort would yield "zero lawsuits" and would instead lead to more expensive software. "The liability angle is not the right idea," McGraw says. "The market is working right now. Sure, software is still busted. But companies are really making marked progress. As long as that's working, I don't see why you should invoke the liability hammer."

SANS' annual list had been criticized by security experts as more of a laundry list rather than offering a solution, but this year the list came with so-called "focus profiles" that broke the programming errors into groups based on categories of weaknesses and also provided mitigation information. The list is in order of priority this year, with failure to preserve Web page structure (think cross-site scripting) as No. 1, and race condition mistakes as No. 25, notes Robert Martin, lead for compatibility and outreach at Mitre.

The Top 25 encompasses programming mishaps that are the root cause of most major cyberattacks, including the breaches at Google, power companies, military systems, and attacks on small businesses and home users, its creators say.

Even with the upgrades to the Top 25, McGraw says it's ineffective: "It's still a popularity list and not based on actual bug data from any real company," he says. Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
AI Is Everywhere, but Don't Ignore the Basics
Howie Xu, Vice President of AI and Machine Learning at Zscaler,  9/10/2019
Fed Kaspersky Ban Made Permanent by New Rules
Dark Reading Staff 9/11/2019
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
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-4147
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-16
IBM Sterling File Gateway 2.2.0.0 through 6.0.1.0 is vulnerable to SQL injection. A remote attacker could send specially-crafted SQL statements, which could allow the attacker to view, add, modify or delete information in the back-end database. IBM X-Force ID: 158413.
CVE-2019-5481
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-16
Double-free vulnerability in the FTP-kerberos code in cURL 7.52.0 to 7.65.3.
CVE-2019-5482
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-16
Heap buffer overflow in the TFTP protocol handler in cURL 7.19.4 to 7.65.3.
CVE-2019-15741
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-16
An issue was discovered in GitLab Omnibus 7.4 through 12.2.1. An unsafe interaction with logrotate could result in a privilege escalation
CVE-2019-16370
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-16
The PGP signing plugin in Gradle before 6.0 relies on the SHA-1 algorithm, which might allow an attacker to replace an artifact with a different one that has the same SHA-1 message digest, a related issue to CVE-2005-4900.