OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

was message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [was] WAS Test


To the best of my knowledge, there is an overlap between the meta data
section in VulnXML, and the was-core schema. WAS core did not attempt to
cater for the actual execution of the test, rather it is concerned with
the description of the vulnerability, the effects, the recommendations, etc.

There is no "reference" between the two as such. The intention is to
define the necessary schema for testing the actual vulnerability, in
terms of the actual HTTP request to execute, using the existing VulnXML
elements as a reference, but extending it to cater for the limitations
that have alread been identified, such as 404 detection and concurrency.

As far as WAS-XML goes (as a standard), I don't think that we should
specify when the 404 detection should happen. That would be up to an
individual implementation to decide. A naive implementation that does
not implement a spider as well as the WAS engine would check for one or
two obviously incorrect URLs to base its decision on. A more
sophisticated implementation might spider the site, testing for
obviously non-existent URL's in each directory that it discovers.

That should not be the concern of the WAS-XML standard. Our concern is
to define the callback to the implementation to actually peform the
check, and return a true or false value.

In my opinion, that is ;-)

This is one way on which the implementations can distinguish themselves,
and offer additional value to their users. The better the engine, the
fewer false positives you will get. And an improvement in the 404
detection will not necessitate redoing the entire WAS-XML test base, too.



Yuval Ben-Itzhak wrote:

> Let me summarize where we stand on the Test project, as I see it.
> We have Rogan's VulnXML schema + WAS was-core0.3.xml schema.
> There is no reference between the two.
> Let me know if I missed something.
> As for the 404 detection process suggested below - from my experience, you
> should have it at the beginning and at the end of the Crawl phase as during
> the crawl you might find new directories that might use additional 404
> pages. Your suggested XML element is good but to describe the 404 patterns
> we will need an additional schema.
> Yuval.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rogan Dawes [mailto:rogan@dawes.za.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:28 PM
> To: Mark Curphey
> Cc: yuvalben@netvision.net.il; was@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [was] WAS Test
> There have not been any significant changes to the last published
> VulnXML schema, if that is what you are asking. At this point, I have
> been trying to get feedback from list members on a couple of proposals
> to extend the existing format to support concurrent access (via
> ThreadGroup and Thread constructs), as well as engine specific 404
> detection.
> I have no idea what the sqlInjection complex type refers to. It
> definitely does NOT refer to either the original VulnXML, or the
> proposed updates.
> Your analysis of the current state of Test is pretty accurate.
> In order to move forward, the most important thing is that people
> RESPOND. I've made some suggestions, and had NO response, whether
> mailling folks directly, or via the list. I don't want to do this in a
> vacuum, and don't want to do it by myself.
> I am happy that we move to using schemas to describe WAS-XML.
> To reiterate past discussion, the weak areas currently under
> "discussion" are concurrency and 404 detection.
> Concurrency is important to allow for tests that require two or more
> simultaneous requests to reveal a problem, such as failure to lock data
> structures (see the Webgoat simultaneous logon as an example).
> My suggestion was to create a ThreadGroup element, which contains 2 or
> more Thread elements, followed by a Test element. Each Thread element
> would contain 1 or more Request-Response-Test elements.
> By extending the spec to allow for specifying delays before each step is
> executed, we should be able to describe concurrent requests reasonably
> well. The Test after the Thread elements is intended to test the results
> of all previous threads together, once all have completed.
> w.r.t 404 detection, I have come to the conclusion that it is better for
> the detection of custom 404 responses to be performed by the executing
> engine, then trying to code all the possibilities into the XML. Firstly,
> the XML would become out of date really quickly, and actually, I believe
> that it is impossible to describe all the ways in which web servers
> react to non-existent pages in such a format.
> It makes sense that the executing engine could probe the server under
> test prior to the start, request e.g. an index page that DOES exist,
> request a couple of obviously bogus non-existent URLs, and determine how
> the particular server responds, and applies similar logic to pages
> retrieved later. It could be as simple as a "<Test URLExists="true">" or
> whatever. This would result in a callback to the engine which would
> perform some analysis on the Response that it got to the Request, react
> appropriately.
> suggestions for appropriate attribute tags or tag names are appreciated ;-)
> Regards,
> Rogan
> Mark Curphey wrote:
>>Yuval Ben-Itzak (now an individual member) is going to help act as
>>custodian to get the Test element complete. I have sent him the last few
>>weeks emails as I fear they may not have got to him. He has this
>>question that I thought I would forward.
>>Is Rogan's Schema to describe a vulnerability still valid ? or do we use
>>another one.
>>As I did not see a definition for the ComplexType element "sqlInjection"
>>in the file you sent me I thought it probably reference Rogan's schema -
>>am I correct ?
>>This is where I think the Test element development is.
>>Initial VulnXML DTD defined
>>Some weaknesses identified and styles / approaches to moving forward
>>(calling reusable functions etc)
>>Initial Java execution engine built into WebScarab for POC
>>Plans for a C# engine to show interoperability of signatures
>>Things that I know need to happen before WAS 1.0 spec release are;
>>Confirm, explore and document the weaknesses in VulnXML
>>Convert that existing work to Schema and use schema moving forward
>>Develop test cases to explore weaknesses and make improvements to schema
>>design until we are happy with WAS Test 1.0
>>Develop the Java and C# reference implementations
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/was/members/leave_workgroup.php
> ..

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]