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

4/8/2009
03:11 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Rocky Road To More Secure Code

Secure application development initiatives are all the rage now, but will developers get 'religion'?

Homeland Security's Build Security In, Microsoft's Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC), BSIMM, and now OpenSAMM: Secure application development programs are spreading amid calls for more secure code.

The practice of writing applications from the ground up with security in mind remains in its infancy, even with software giant Microsoft leading the charge by sharing its internal Software Development Lifecycle framework in the form of free models and tools for third-party application developers and customers in the spirit of promoting more secure software. Now financial services firms are comparing notes and sharing their secure coding strategies and experiences in the new Building Security In Maturity Model (BSIMM) program spearheaded by Cigital and Fortify Software.

But in a recession fraught with shrinking budgets, it's unclear whether companies can afford to invest in secure development initiatives. In an as-yet unpublished survey by Forrester Research and Veracode, 45 percent of organizations said that application security is a significant part of their overall security strategy, but that they will likely be scaling back those initiatives in their next budget cycle. Around 18 percent of these organizations said their funding for app security will remain intact.

Funding is just one of the wild cards. Retooling application development also often requires a big cultural shift. While efforts like BSIMM and OpenSAMM have raised the profile of secure code-writing, security experts say, widespread deployment of such efforts within enterprises won't be easy.

"It's a good thing for the marketplace, this heightened security awareness [in application development]. But how do you implement it? It's like the early days of network vulnerability scanning -- there's so much output that you need a security expert to implement it," says Matt Moynahan, CEO of Veracode. "It's a difficult problem to solve."

BSIMM provides benchmarks for establishing an organizationwide software security program, based on real-world security software initiatives at the likes of financial firms Wells Fargo and Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. (DTCC), as well as Adobe, EMC, Google, Microsoft, and Qualcomm, and input from Cigital and Fortify. Jim Routh, CISO for DTCC, says his firm's internal secure development initiative saves the firm money labor and other costs. "This savings is reallocated to higher-value activities," Routh says. "Our controls identify defects or vulnerabilities early in the [development] life cycle."

But Veracode's Moynahan, whose company provides application security testing services, says BSIMM alone isn't enough. "What needs to happen is that appsec secure coding has to find a way into the mass market. The recommendations are a good set of guiding principles," he says. But for organizations with no knowledge of security, limited funds, or a small start-up, will they really go implement these best practices?

Another similar initiative, OpenSAMM (Software Assurance Maturity Model) launched last week, boasts an open-source model aimed at becoming an industry standard for secure software development. Led by OWASP member Pravir Chandra, OpenSAMM was initially funded by Fortify, which later helped develop BSIMM.

These models for building a secure app program, as well as DHS's Build Security In and others, also serve as a reality check that developing safer software takes more than scanning tools and penetration tests. "I think we are coming to the realization that application security requires a significant investment in all phases of the development life cycle, and while many organizations have been hoping that there was some 'silver bullet' for this problem, the publication of these maturity models show that it takes much more commitment," says Cory Scott, vice president of technical security assessment for ABN AMRO Bank.

NEXT: Off to a "good start" 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
RDP Bug Takes New Approach to Host Compromise
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/18/2019
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
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-2019-10101
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
ServiceStack ServiceStack Framework 4.5.14 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The impact is: JavaScrpit is reflected in the server response, hence executed by the browser. The component is: the query used in the GET request is prone. The attack vector is: Since there is no server-side valid...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Voice Builder Prior to commit c145d4604df67e6fc625992412eef0bf9a85e26b and f6660e6d8f0d1d931359d591dbdec580fef36d36 is affected by: CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'). The impact is: Remote code execution with the same privileges as the...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Jeesite 1.2.7 is affected by: SQL Injection. The impact is: sensitive information disclosure. The component is: updateProcInsIdByBusinessId() function in src/main/java/com.thinkgem.jeesite/modules/act/ActDao.java has SQL Injection vulnerability. The attack vector is: network connectivity,authenticat...
CVE-2018-18670
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "Extra Contents" parameter, aka the adm/config_form_update.php cf_1~10 parameter.
CVE-2018-18672
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "board head contents" parameter, aka the adm/board_form_update.php bo_content_head parameter.