I want to concur with Peter - you should do a code <insert noun> after
you've given the devs a tutorial, otherwise they'll find nothing.
And teach them tricks, like evaluating the data source - it's all about
the data in many cases; and untrusted data from mostly anonymous users
is what causes real issues. Code on an anonymous data path should be
reviewed the most.
[Writing Secure Code] http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/5957.asp
[Protect Your PC] http://www.microsoft.com/protect
[Blog] http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard
[On-line Security Training]
http://mste/training/offerings.asp?TrainingID=53074
-----Original Message-----
From: pgut001 [mailto:pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:14 AM
To: secprog@securityfocus.org
Subject: Re: "Selling" a code-audit.
Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org> writes:
Don't call it an audit. Call it a review, a walk-through, or something
less
agressive.
Right. It's going to be tricky to avoid the perception by developers
that
auditors aren't just externally-appointed code nazis come to criticise
their
work. One possible approach here is to treat it as a lead-in to the
developers themselves doing the reviews/walk-throughs. So you start out
with
(say) a half-day tutorial on security reviews/walkthroughs, and then
spend the
second half of the day going through code with the in-house developers,
as an
extension of the initial tutorial. Although this may quack like a code
review/audit, all it's doing is using actual code to point out a few
examples
for tutorial purposes (no, really!). The actual code reviewing is then
done
by in-house developers, possibly with a little further assistance
(purely to
provide guidance and training, no more) by the external
auditors/reviewers.
(Something to watch out for is that although everyone will be
enthusiastic
about code reviews initially, eventually some ship deadline will come
up
faster than expected and the reviews will be dropped to save time, and
then
another urgent deadline will appear, and pretty soon it'll all be going
out
unchecked again).
Peter.
