Repository navigation
MASVS-CODE Refactoring (till 26.05.22) #638
Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
MASVS-CODE-1:I think the details lie in how the tests are specified, and if we're considering the security impact. For instance, for checking that there are no non-production URLs, is it considered a failure if there are references to a staging environment that's only accessible via a VPN? Should specific checks be broken up between L1, L2, and Resilience? For instance, a failed check which is not adversely impacting the security of the app/data would prohibit acceptance at L2, but would allow acceptance at L1. MASVS-CODE-3:It'd be nice to see some additional guidance on what an "up-to-date platform version" is. While there is a nod to the fact that the threat model of the application should define what an acceptable recent version is, some more specific options would include:
MASVS-CODE-5:This should be much more clearly defined as Medium+ vulnerability that is actually impacting the security of the app being evaluated. |
|
Potential new control: |
|
I agree with @grigorescu regarding the MASVS-CODE-3. My suggestion is to have more actionable item because its hard to define what is up-to-date platform version . For example having a blocklist for vulnerable OS versions (for android the list should have security patch levels).
Thank you 👍 |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hello everybody,
as part of the refactoring process we decided to publish our draft of every section of the MASVS that we (@cpholguera, @TheDauntless and @sushi2k) worked on.
This is based on the MASVS category "V7: Code Quality and Build Setting Requirements" (from the MASVS Version 1.4.2): https://github.com/OWASP/owasp-masvs/blob/v1.4.2/Document/0x12-V7-Code_quality_and_build_setting_requirements.md
Here you can find a summary of the proposed new requirements (more details below):
In the following link we include a nice visualization as a diff spreadsheet including:
MASVS-CODE Refactoring Diff
All reactions