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

Securing Software Requires Design, Testing, And Improvement

Adopting secure development, incorporating frequent testing, and creating measures of software security are important to create more secure code

Software makers need to adopt secure development methodologies and make their processes more transparent to assure customers that security is a shared goal, experts told attendees at the RSA Conference in San Francisco last week.

RSA Conference 2014
Click here for more articles about the RSA Conference.

On a panel of vulnerability-assessment firms, software companies, and customers, speakers stressed that software developers should take the initiative, design for security from the start, frequently test their products, and communicate vulnerabilities and risks to the customer. While adding security to the development cycle is an expense, software makers should educate customers about the advantages of their secure software development, the panelists said.

Utilities, for example, do not necessarily know what is a good measure of security for software, so raising the topic with such firms makes security part of the procurement discussion, said panelist Nadya Bartol, senior cybersecurity strategist for the Utilities Telecom Council.

"The dialogue between those who buy software and those who supply software is a fledgling process," Bartol said. "So, for us, it's a question of how do we manage the risk of what we buy and ask the right set of questions?"

The Building Security In Maturity Model (BSIMM) is a good place to start, panelists said. The group behind BSIMM surveyed 67 real software security development processes, encompassing 112 different security activities, and organized them by the most common practices to the most rare. A developer looking to improve its software security process can use the document as a cookbook from which to take popular recipes for security.

[How can software developers build more secure applications? Here are five pitfalls to avoid. See The Five Most Common Security Pitfalls In Software Development.]

Yet establishing a secure methodology is not enough. While the panelists discussed the secure development process, the main focus of the discussion was ways of measuring software security -- not just as a customer requirement, but as an internal control. While developers need to be given clear guidelines for creating secure software, code has to be tested regularly to gauge how well the company is progressing with security, said Steven Lipner, director of software security at Microsoft

"It is not enough to have a process," Lipner said. "You have actually have to implement the process, and know you have implemented it."

In addition, communicating the state of software security is important, but can be conundrum for vendors, said Eric Baise, senior director in the product security office at EMC. Giving too much information about the security testing and state of a product could give attackers a guide of where to look for vulnerabilities, he said.

"The question for me is what characteristics of the software development process that we can measure and publish as a vendor, and share with our customers, that does not not put our customers at risk, but gives them the right information to practice proper risk management," Baise said.

In many ways, the process is similar to healthcare, the panelists concluded. Just because a person exercises does not mean he should not go to the doctor regularly, and just because he has an annual checkup does not mean he can stop exercising.

While software security, and showing that software development is secure, may seem to be a complex task, the security industry has taken on more difficult problems, said Chris Wysopal, co-founder and chief technology officer of Veracode.

"We do measure security, and if someone wants to see the third-party report for the security of an infrastructure, I would argue that that is more complex than the security of a single product," Wysopal said.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
JasonSachowski
50%
50%
JasonSachowski,
User Rank: Author
3/28/2014 | 8:46:46 AM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Getting "top-down" buy-in is only as complicated as the way we communicate it.  This unfortunately stems back to how, for the most part, security professionals talk in terms of technical threats which does not neccessarily translate well into business logic.  Instead of communicating Software Security from a technical point of view, such as "We must enforce input validation to prevent against data type corruption and security vulnerabilities"; we could approach it from a business perspective based on risk, such as "Input validation provides assurance of business integrity, customer confidentiality, and application availability".

Security must be viewed as just another attribute of software, much like usability, performance, reliability, and scalability. With full participation of different stakeholders in a Secure-SDLC program, security risks can be identified both before deployment and during implementation, reducing the attack surface and strengthening defense-in-depth strategies. A "team approach" to secure software development will improve the software release, change, and configuration management processes, improving software deployment standards.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
3/27/2014 | 2:33:05 PM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Enabling that culture change is a terrific idea but certainly has many challenges -- not the least of which is getting buy in from the C-suite. In your experience, what are the most effective "top-down" executive poliices and practices that foster a proactive security mindset within an organization?
JasonSachowski
50%
50%
JasonSachowski,
User Rank: Author
3/27/2014 | 2:23:07 PM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Information Security cannot be the conscious of the business if we continue to focus on the flaws instead of identify solutions.  A good start to addressing this challenge would be to create a culture where we as Security professional bring forward what we know that helps to enable the business to operate securely; opposed to going around in circles asking what the business knows and creating barriers.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
3/27/2014 | 7:37:13 AM
Re: Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Thanks for your comment Jason. If software security is typically not viewed as a part of an important business need, what do you think has to happen to make the industry take the issue more seriously?
JasonSachowski
50%
50%
JasonSachowski,
User Rank: Author
3/27/2014 | 7:16:55 AM
Attack-Agnostic through "Security By Design"
Software assurance (aka software security) is most often not viewed as a part of business needs.  This could be attributed back to how security has been traiditionally viewed as a "roadblock" or as mentioned above goes back to security not being strongly integrated throughout the SDLC processes.
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment:   It's a PEN test of our cloud security.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-7245
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
Incorrect username validation in the registration processes of CTFd through 2.2.2 allows a remote attacker to take over an arbitrary account after initiating a password reset. This is related to register() and reset_password() in auth.py. To exploit the vulnerability, one must register with a userna...
CVE-2019-14885
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A flaw was found in the JBoss EAP Vault system in all versions before 7.2.6.GA. Confidential information of the system property's security attribute value is revealed in the JBoss EAP log file when executing a JBoss CLI 'reload' command. This flaw can lead to the exposure of confidential information...
CVE-2019-17570
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
An untrusted deserialization was found in the org.apache.xmlrpc.parser.XmlRpcResponseParser:addResult method of Apache XML-RPC (aka ws-xmlrpc) library. A malicious XML-RPC server could target a XML-RPC client causing it to execute arbitrary code. Apache XML-RPC is no longer maintained and this issue...
CVE-2020-6007
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
Philips Hue Bridge model 2.X prior to and including version 1935144020 contains a Heap-based Buffer Overflow when handling a long ZCL string during the commissioning phase, resulting in a remote code execution.
CVE-2012-4606
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
Citrix XenServer 4.1, 6.0, 5.6 SP2, 5.6 Feature Pack 1, 5.6 Common Criteria, 5.6, 5.5, 5.0, and 5.0 Update 3 contains a Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability which could allow local users with access to a guest operating system to gain elevated privileges.