Christian Schneider | @cschneider4711

Security DevOpsAutomation von Security-Checks in der Build-Kette

`whoami`

» Software Developer, Whitehat Hacker & Trainer » Freelancer since 1997 » Focus on Java & Web Security

(Pentests & Security Architecture Consulting) » Speaker at Conferences » @cschneider4711

www.mail@｝Christian-Schneider.net

Security – SAST & DAST

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Fun Part

The Ratio Problem

Dev OpsSec

100 10 1 : :

The Frequency Problem

mehr Rollouts als Pentests

Security DevOps ?

Integrate Security Tools into Build-Jobs / CI-Chain

on every commit or nightly

Why Security DevOps?

» Keep up with rollout pace in agile projects » Automate certain checks as best as possible within

the build-chain » Early feedback to Devs

» Does not remove the pentest requirement! » Aims to free pentesters’ time to hunt more

high-hanging bugs

four axes each with four belts as incremental stepsimplicit master

… what levels will we cover?

Four different axes

4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

Dynamic Depth

Intensity

Static DepthConsolidation

4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

Dynamic Depth

Intensity

Static DepthConsolidation

Four different axes

Let’s explore these axes …

» … by showing how to implement this with OpenSource solutions used in the Security & Development domains.

Axis of "Dynamic Depth"

How deep are dynamic scans executed within a Security DevOps CI chain?

i.e. "where" are dynamic security tests applied?

Axis "Dynamic Depth": Level 1

Scanning of public attack surface (pre-auth):

» Spidering of UI layer » No requirement to authenticate scanner with target » Easy integration of scanner(s) in nightly build as

post-step

» "Throw tool at it (in CI-chain) and see what it generates…"

Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP)

"OWASP ZAP" features:

»passive scanning (Proxy / Spider) »active scanning (Proxy / Spider) »manual payload delivery (Intercepting Proxy) »Spider (classic & AJAX) »Fuzzing »Plugins »…

Active Scanning with ZAP…

ZAP in SecDevOps?

"OWASP ZAP" features relevant for Security DevOps integration:

»Headless operation mode / daemon »REST-API »Highly scriptable »CLI

ZAP + Jenkins = SecDevOps?

"OWASP ZAP" scanner + Jenkins plugin "ZAP Jenkins Plugin"

» Allows us to "Spider & Scan" as step in build job » Point plugin config to URL of integration system to test » Plugin saves HTML-report in project’s job for inspection » Best as separate Jenkins job to run during nightly build

(duration): » ZAP sends reporting data back to Jenkins » Jenkins publishes and archives the report(s) » Jenkins can create JIRA tickets when desired

UI- and Service-Tests in CI

… enhanced with OWASP ZAP

passive & active scanning

place report (html,xml) into workspace

Arachni in SecDevOps?

"Arachni Scanner" features relevant for Security DevOps integration:

» Command-Line Interface (CLI)

» Optional Web-UI

» RPC / REST-API

» Headless PhantomJS based browser cluster

» Better at spidering JavaScript-heavy applications

» Auto-login handling & session management

» Scanning authenticated application parts

Arachni + Jenkins = SecDevOps?

"Arachni Scanner" + Jenkins CLI step in build » Start in build job as CLI step and point to URL

of system under test » Generate HTML report and place into

workspace for inspection » Better execute within nightly build job

(due to duration)

» Alternatively: Start remote (also via CLI) to run async

HTML report of Arachni scanBildquelle: Arachni Scanner

Arachni Web-UI: Scan scheduling

Bildquelle: Arachni Scanner

Axis "Dynamic Depth": Level 2

Scanning of authenticated parts (= "post-auth") via UI layer » Properly maintaining sessions » Logout-detection & automatic re-login » Different users / roles » Spider & scan post-auth

Handling of hardening measures of application under test

» CSRF-Tokens, etc.

Guide ZAP into Post-Auth in CI

Different ways exist to let ZAP scan inside the authenticated parts:

» Configure authentication within ZAP—> works for standard login dialog submits

» Individually script authentication within ZAP—> flexible (sometimes complex) scripted in JavaScript—> can be recorded as Zest-Script

Login config example within ZAP

ZAProxy Jenkins Plugin: ZAP session use

Guide Arachni into Post-Auth

Give authentication infos to Arachni (Auth, Logged-In Indicators, Users)

» Use Arachni "autologin" plugin to specify via command line – Login URL, formfield names, credentials, logged-in

indicator, excludes

» Alternatively write custom ruby script for "login_script" plugin – Individual custom login logic possible – Logged-In indicators (RegExp) to know when to re-login

Login config example within Arachni (used in CI): via config

./arachni --plugin=autologin: url=https://example.com/login.action, parameters='j_username=foo&j_password=bar', check='Logout' --scope-exclude-pattern=logout.action https://example.com/

Axis "Dynamic Depth": Level 3

Separate scanning of different application layers / backends

• Scan internal WebServices (e.g. SOAP / REST) = directly scan backends

• Detect and scan parameter positions within XML, JSON, …

• Scan from "within" the different application’s layers

• IAST with distributed agents & instrumentation aims into that direction

• At least one simple step in that direction:

• Use the scanning proxy also between your backend service calls

• Or (if available): Use existing SOAP-Tests directly proxying through scanner

Backend scans with ZAP

How to achieve this with ZAP?

• ZAP operates as proxy server: place it between backend calls

• ZAP can inject payloads in observed XML tags/attributes & JSON fields

• Capture service call traffic in integration test during CI while either

A. frontend UI tests execute service backend calls indirectly, or

B. executing service tests that directly access the service endpoint

• Automatically scan as new requests are seen: "ATTACK Mode"

Also keep an eye on an alpha-level SOAP-Scanner ZAP addon

Axis "Dynamic Depth": Level 4

Targeted scanning of individual forms / wizards (UI) and service layers

» More individualized workflow coverage (not just simple spidering)

» Business-logic compliant usage patterns & inputs – "fill shopping cart followed by checkout process" – "access backend WebServices in special order to test

workflow", etc. » Custom coded security tests tailored to the application

Many ways exist… The simplest one could be: Re-use existing UI tests (Selenium, …)

» Proxy this traffic through ZAP in "ATTACK-Mode" (in security test phase of build)

» Optionally use ZAP Attack-Policies to specify/limit certain attack types

ZAP with special workflows (1/2)

ZAP with special workflows (2/2)

A more customized handling of individual workflows can be achieved:

Re-use & enhance existing "UI test code" at the desiredworkflow steps with calls to ZAP’s (REST)-API ordering attacks » Basically it’s like Unit-Test code that uses Selenium along

with with ZAP-Calls at the proper positions in application workflow

» Type of "ordered attacks" can again be defined via policies » Start ZAP as Daemon from Jenkins via plugin

Axis of "Static Depth"

How deep is static code analysis performed within a Security DevOps CI chain?

i.e. "where" are static security tests applied?

Axis "Static Depth": Level 1

Assurance that no third-party code with known vulnerabilities is used » Check application’s dependencies

– For Java applications: JAR files, etc.

Useful even for projects not currently under development » New vulnerabilities could become public:

Run a build regularly to check

Java libs: OWASP Dependency-Check

Scans all dependencies (even transitive ones) against CVE list

» Available as Maven plugin and Ant task » CLI version also available » Jenkins plugin for nice reporting

(and build breaking thresholds) » Not false-positive free

– regularly needs some time to triage findings

Axis "Static Depth": Level 2

Scan important parts of source code for vulnerability patterns

» At least important parts of applications’ codebases are scanned – like in-house reused code & custom developed

frameworks – for big multi-project Maven projects:

at least frontend and backend projects – or code of changed modules within a sprint

Java: FindSecurityBugs

Plugin for FindBugs with enhanced checks for security issues in Java code

»Runs within FindBugs, so that it can execute in Maven and/or Sonar

»Generates XML-file with potential findings »Jenkins FindBugs plugin for representing results

(also possible to display in Sonar)

Ruby on Rails apps: Brakeman

Scans RoR code for vulnerabilities

» CLI based » Nicely integrates with Jenkins

– Rendering scan results and trend analysis » Allows to compare scan results (delta detection)

– "What has been fixed and what was newly introduced?"

Axis "Static Depth": Level 3

Scan the complete applications’ source code for vulnerability patterns

» Just like "Level 2", but now for the complete codebase(no excludes)

– i.e. all projects of a multi-project Maven project – best via parent or corporate pom.xml

For FindSecurityBugs this means: » pre-compile even all JSPs (if you have any)

to scan them

Axis "Static Depth": Level 4

Scan source code of (important) third-party dependencies used in application

» If the component is open-source: – include it in regular scanning activities

» If the component is closed-source: – consider using code scanners that operate on binaries

• FindBugs (hence its FindSecurityBugs plugin) can also scan Java binaries, since it operates on Bytecode

Axis of "Intensity"

How intense are the majority of the executed attacks within a Security

DevOps CI chain?

i.e. "what" is being checked for?

Axis "Intensity": Level 1

Dynamic checks: Only passive scanning

» Simply proxy testcase generated traffic through passive scanners » Quick-win for using existing testcase code (i.e. Service- or UI-tests) » Can execute within existing tests that execute on every commit

– No requirement for a separate nightly CI job (i.e. doesn’t slow down build)

Static checks: Just scan the code along with other code metrics » Use the default rules of the scanners and integrate them into CI

Axis "Intensity": Level 2

Use lightweight active scanning options for dynamic checks

» ZAP: active scanning of observed URLs – provide a ZAP policy with desired active scan intensity

» Arachni: enable "active scan" during spidering

Better to execute in separate (nightly) build job due to duration

Axis "Intensity": Level 3

Use heavyweight scanning options on important parts of application

Dynamic checks: create "riskier" custom attack profiles

ZAP: – set "Threshold" to "Low" / "Strength" to "High" (or selectively "Insane") – enable more scanning rules via Policy Files

(could be maintained & used via SCM) – use ZAP’s "Advanced SQLInjection Scanner" extension

Arachni: – Enable the more aggressive "audit flags" like --audit-forms, …

Static checks: FindSecurityBugs: – set "Threshold" to "Low" and "Effort" to "Max"

Axis "Intensity": Level 4

Use customised rule sets for dynamic checks

Some examples for ZAP:

» Custom coded scan scripts as active & passive scan rules for company-individual checks

» Security regression tests (in Zest) against previous found vulns (also logic flaws)

» Custom input vector scripts: e.g. define certain injection points in custom encoded params

» Proxy scripts: for example for generic request/response modifications

Scripting possibilities in ZAP

… and for static code scans?

Use customised rule sets for static checks

Some example for FindSecurityBugs:

» Custom coded rule files (in Java) to check for wrong usages of server-side inhouse frameworks

Axis of "Consolidation"

How complete is the process of handling findings within a Security DevOps CI chain?

i.e. "how" are the results used?

Axis "Consolidation": Level 1

Generate human-readable (HTML) reports from tools and link them in Jenkins

» All relevant mentioned static and dynamic scanners generate HTML reports

» Collect and publish them in Jenkins build: via Jenkins "HTML Publisher Plugin"

Jenkins "HTML Publisher Plugin": Configuration of HTML reports to link

Jenkins "HTML Publisher Plugin":

Result in build

HTML report of ZAP scan

Axis "Consolidation": Level 1 (cont.)

Use simple criteria to "break the build" on heavy findings (ok, at least "unstable")

» Most scanners have capabilities to automatically flag the build » Dependency-Check (Severity Threshold), » FindSecurityBugs (via Sonar when rated as blocker), » etc.

» For others: at least do a simple log parse from Jenkins "Log Parser Plugin" to flag the build as unstable and/or broken

OWASP Dependency-Check: Thresholds to break build

Axis "Consolidation": Level 2

Custom logic to make build unstable and/or broken depending on

» Type of vulnerability (CWE or WASC or …) » Severity ranking (high risk) » Confidence level (firm vs. tentative)

Provide useful remediation info to developers Respect suppression mechanisms to rule out false positives

Flagging builds from reports

How (from within a CI job)?

» Most scanners also emit XML reports that can be parsed – Often a simple XPath count is just fine

» Alternatively fetch the results by accessing the scanner’s API

» Be sure to only break build with findings of high severity and high confidence !!!

– Less is more (when it comes to automation)…

» When new check introduce many findings: Baseline-Approach: Only break on new findings

Suppression of false positives

Custom finding list (from XML reports): filter out according to list from code repo

FindSecurityBugs: Use exclusion lists in config (XML filter files) & annotation @SuppressWarnings on false positive code lines

Dependency-Check: XML file of suppressions (checked-in along with the project)

Axis "Consolidation": Level 3

Consolidation goals:

» Consolidate & de-duplicate findings from different scanner reports

» including better false positive handling

» Push consolidated findings into established bug-tracker

» Delta analysis & trends over consolidated data sets

ThreadFix as result consolidator

Use a local ThreadFix server, which imports native scanner outputs

• does the heavy lifting of consolidation & de-duplication

• pushes findings toward bug-tracker and IDE (via plugins)

• process can be customised using it’s own REST-API

• ThreadFix imports findings of ZAP, Arachni, FindBugs, Brakeman, etc.

Report generated by ThreadFixBildquelle: ThreadFix

Trend Chart generated by ThreadFixBildquelle: ThreadFix

Axis "Consolidation": Level 4

Measure the concrete code coverage of your security testing activities

» Find untested "white spots" » Derive where static checks and code reviews

should focus more to compensate

Code coverage analysis

Use "OWASP Code Pulse", which instruments your Java app

» collects coverage data during dynamic security testing scans » generates reports ("code treemaps") of coverage

Code Treemap of dynamic scan coverageBildquelle: OWASP Code Pulse

Thank you very much!

LinksOWASP ZAP https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Zed_Attack_Proxy_ProjectZAP Selenium Demo https://github.com/continuumsecurity/zap-webdriverZAP Jenkins Plugin https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/zap+pluginArachni http://www.arachni-scanner.comOWASP Dependency Check https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Dependency_CheckFindSecurityBugs http://h3xstream.github.io/find-sec-bugs/Jenkins Log Parser Plugin https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Log+Parser+PluginThreadFix http://www.threadfix.orgOWASP Code Pulse https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Code_Pulse_Project

Bildquelle: dreamstime.com

Hands-on Trainings for these and more Security Tools:

www.Christian-Schneider.net mail@Christian-Schneider.net

Twitter: @cschneider4711