Over Half of Software Fails First Security Tests

An anonymous reader writes "Even with all of the emphasis on writing software with security in mind, most software applications remain riddled with security holes, according to a new report released today about the actual security quality of all types of software. Close to 60 percent of the applications tested by application security company Veracode in the past year-and-a-half failed to achieve a successful rating in their first round of testing. And this data is based on software developers who took the time and effort to have their code tested — who knows about the others." Reader sgtrock pointed out another interesting snippet from the article: "'The conventional wisdom is that open source is risky. But open source was no worse than commercial software upon first submission. That's encouraging,' Oberg says. And it was the quickest to remediate any flaws: 'It took about 30 days to remediate open-source software, and much longer for commercial and internal projects,' he says."

Comments

Security is no selling point

[Opportunist]

It just is not. Actually, quite the opposite: The better your security, the more your potential customer will be put off by it.

Users do not care about security until it is too late (i.e. until after they got infected), and only then they will bitch and rant and complain how insecure your piece of junk is. If you, otoh, take security serious and implement it sensibly, they will bitch and rant already at install because they hate the hoops to jump through and the obstacles to dodge to make your software "just work".

Security is the antagonist to comfort. By its very definition. No matter where you look, security always means "additional work". Either to the user, which means overhead to his work, or to the program, which means it will invariably be slower than its competing products.

Thus security is not only an "unnecessary evil" when selling your product. It is actually hurting you when you try to convince someone to buy your stuff. Your software will be slower due to its security "burden", and it will be less comfortable to the user. The user does not see the glaring security holes when he buys the product. Only after, when the product bites him in the ass because it opened him up to an attack. But by then, he will already have paid for your product. And he will have bought your product instead of the more secure product your competitor offered, because yours was faster and easier to use.

Re:Bolting On

[Bert64]

For another encryption example, look at how windows and linux implement user password hashing...

Linux takes the plaintext password via an input channel (ssh, telnet, gdm, local console etc), passes it to PAM which loads the corresponding password from the shadow file, encrypts the user input with the same algorithm and salt, and compares the output. The backend (pam, encryption cipher) can be changed without affecting how the frontend, making it easy to use a different encryption algorithm as increases in computing power, or discovery of cryptographic flaws, renders the old ones insecure.

Windows, in a somewhat misguided attempt to prevent plain texts being sent over the network, effectively uses the encrypted hash (yes its more complicated than that, but the general idea is that only the hash ever gets used and the password isnt sent in the clear - unix solves this at a different layer by using encryption of the plaintext password such as ssh)... Because of this, the hashing algorithm is difficult to change. Older windows used lanman which is laughably weak, while modern windows uses ntlm by default which is somewhat stronger but not great... However, modern windows still has lanman support for compatibility reasons, and until vista/2008 it was still enabled by default. If they change the hashing algorithm, then they will still have to retain the old ones for quite some time in order to have compatibility, and also change the protocols to handle a third possible algorithm.
The fact that you can use the hash without cracking it first is also a design flaw, this isn't possible on unix or anything else i'm aware of.