Monday, 7 November 2016

I don't know the security status of a website

Lack of data should affect decision-making about application security.

Recently, I looked at a very interesting company that provides VISA compatible debit-card for kids, which allows kids to get a card whose budget can be controlled online by their parents. There is even a way to invest in the company online via a crowdfunding scheme.

I looked at this company as a knowledgeable person, able to process security information and highly technical information about the application security of any web service. But I was not able to make any informed security decision about whether this service is safe for my kids. I couldn't understand the company's level of security because they don't have to publish it and, therefore, I don’t have access to that data.

As a result, I must take everything on the company's website at face value. And because there is no requirement to publish any real information about their product, the information given is shaped by the company’s marketing strategy. I have no objective way of measuring whether the company has good security across their SDL, has good SecDevOps capabilities, if are there are any known security risks I should be aware, or more importantly, if my kids' data is protected and secure.

This means that my friends who recommended that service to me are even worse off than I am. They are not security savvy users and they can only rely on the limited information given on the company's website.

If there are three or four competing services at any moment in time, they will not be able to compete on the security of their product. It is not good enough if a company only invests in security in case security becomes a problem, or causes embarrassment in the future. It is like saying, "Oh, let's not pollute our environment because we might get caught".

In business today, security issues are directly related to quality issues. Application security could be used to gain a good understanding of what is going on in the company, and whether it is a good company to invest in, or a good company to use as a consumer.

This approach could scale. If I found problems, or if data was open, I could publish my analysis, others could consume it, and this would result in a much more peer-reviewed workflow for companies.

This reflects my first point: if I can’t understand a company's level of security because they don't have to publish it, this should change. And if it does, it will change the market.

Having a responsible disclosure program or public bug bounty program is also a strong indicator of quality and security.

In fact, a company that doesn't have a public bug bounty program is telling the world that they don't have an AppSec team.


(from SecDevOps Risk Workflow book, please provide feedback as an GitHub issue)




Post a Comment