Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Comparison report on web app security scanners |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 17 May 2006 11:54:15 +0100 |
Hi, I just did an assessment, prior to the kickoff I was handed a report from a well known web application scannerthe client performed prior to my manual testing. Looking th the report it has "0% vulnerabilities"....hmm I thought to myslef, this is going to be a hard gig. By the act of the gods or some other divine intervention I found SQL and XSS and Arithmitic overflow issues within the hour.
Now, either I'm also a divine being (I dont think so, last I looked) or the "well known" and expensive tools my client used are *crap*.
My 2 Euro worth, Eoin
Hello,
I would like to add several important comments to this thread, in behalf of Watchfire:
According to tests done in Watchfire's labs, when using AppScan 6.0 SP2 + update 553 on the WebGoat application - AppScan will find 85 links, will create 9557 tests and will eventually find 31 issues (211 different test variants).
People who perform such benchmarks against WebGoat should pay attention to the fact that AppScan needs some configuration in order to run successfully on this application -
- Explore method should be set to DFS (Depth First) - Scan should be done in Single threaded mode - Path limit should be disabled (no path limit) - Depth limit should be enabled (otherwise one of the lessons gets into an infinite loop) - HTTP Authentication - use guest/guest - Add the "Screen" parameter to the black-list (untested parameters) - Auto-form filler should be enabled
(!!!) IMPORTANT: all of the above configuration items existed in AppScan for a long time, these were not added in order to "cook the product" to work properly on WebGoat.
In addition I support what Acunetix mentioned, WebGoat and the FoundStone (Hackme) banking applications are poor examples to be testing on.
I am also quoting Mark Curphey (OWASP), regarding OWASP's WebGoat project: "That said its (i.e. Foundstone's HackMe bank) not a good benchmarking tool for testing these tools, nor is WebGoat" - taken from: http://seclists.org/lists/webappsec/2005/Oct-Dec/0025.html
Thank you very much, -Ory Segal Watchfire
-----Original Message----- From: Bogdan Calin [mailto:bogdan@acunetix.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 17:10 To: webappsec@securityfocus.com Cc: Holger.Peine@iese.fraunhofer.de Subject: Re: Comparison report on web app security scanners
Hello,
A few days ago Dr. Holger Peine published a "Comparison report on web app security scanners".
For this report he used two web applications: one of them is WebGoat and the other one is a proprietary application which is not public.
I don't know anything about this proprietary application but I would like to say that WebGoat is not a good test case for evaluating web scanners.
WebGoat is using server side state variables to track user actions. For example, if you want to test the String SQL injection flaw you first need to navigate to the "String SQL injection" section in order to set the proper state of the application.
If the application is not in the proper state, the SQL injection test will not work. The application will just ignore your inputs.
An automated scanner cannot guess this application behavior, and unless you optimize your scanner for this particular application it will not be able to scan it properly.
When the scanner has finished discovering the site structure, WebGoat will be in some unknown state. All tests will be performed while WebGoat is in this state.
This is not a common implementation.
Because we are offering free audits, we have audited more than 1,000 websites and didn't encountered this kind of implementation.
WebGoat is great for learning about web security flaws but I don't think it should be used as a test case for web security scanners.
Bogdan Calin Acunetix Ltd. - www.acunetix.com Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner
------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Sponsored by: Watchfire
Watchfire named worldwide market share leader in web application security assessment by leading market research firm. Watchfire's AppScan is the industry's first and leading web application security testing suite, and the only solution to provide comprehensive remediation tasks at every level of the application. See for yourself. Download a Free Trial of AppScan 6.0 today!
https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/appscansix.aspx?id=701300000007t9c ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: Watchfire
Watchfire named worldwide market share leader in web application security assessment by leading market research firm. Watchfire's AppScan is the industry's first and leading web application security testing suite, and the only solution to provide comprehensive remediation tasks at every level of the application. See for yourself. Download a Free Trial of AppScan 6.0 today!
https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/appscansix.aspx?id=701300000007t9c --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Eoin Keary OWASP - Ireland http://www.owasp.org/local/ireland.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: Watchfire
https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/appscansix.aspx?id=701300000007t9c --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Previous by Date: | RE: Comparison report on web app security scanners, Erwin Geirnaert |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | MasterBugs Released, Gerald Quakenbush |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Comparison report on web app security scanners, Zaninotti, Thiago |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Comparison report on web app security scanners, Mark Curphey |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |