Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Security IT

Study Shows Many Sites Still Failing Basic Security Measures 103

Orome1 writes with a summary of a large survey of web applications by Veracode. From the article: "Considered 'low hanging fruit' because of their prevalence in software applications, XSS and SQL Injection are two of the most frequently exploited vulnerabilities, often providing a gateway to customer data and intellectual property. When applying the new analysis criteria, Veracode reports eight out of 10 applications fail to meet acceptable levels of security, marking a significant decline from past reports. Specifically for web applications, the report showed a high concentration of XSS and SQL Injection vulnerabilities, with XSS present in 68 percent of all web applications and SQL Injection present in 32 percent of all web applications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Shows Many Sites Still Failing Basic Security Measures

Comments Filter:
  • Citicorp Hack (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @12:43PM (#38292106)

    Then there is the Citicorp hack, where they dont even bother hashing the account numbers in the URL...

  • Nothing new here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vikingpower ( 768921 ) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @01:02PM (#38292354) Homepage Journal
    I am on a project for ( smoke-testing ) the core app. of a major european airport. Same problems there. Management, after having been informed, said: "Not a priority". I guess only their bonuses are "a priority" ? I am thinking seriously of giving pointers to the whole project to Anonymous.
  • Re:200 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slazzy ( 864185 ) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @01:08PM (#38292418) Homepage Journal
    One of the sites at a company I worked for provides fake data back when people attempt sql injection, sort of a honeypot to keep hackers interested long enough to track them down.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @01:11PM (#38292454)
    It also seems to come down to ridiculous timescales. A project is declared, a release date is set in stone. The client overruns their alloted time to come up with requirements/content, the release date stays in stone. The legal teams take forever to draw up and agree on contracts, the release date stays in stone. The IA/UX people miss their deadlines for producing the wireframes, the release date stays in stone. The design team go through a million iterations of whether the drop shadow on the footer text should be mauve or fuscia and overrun their deadline, the release date stays in stone. The client pops up again with dozens of last minute change requests, the release date stays in stone. Then it hits development's desk and suddenly the three month project has to be done in two weeks. Development is almost always the last link in the chain and, as such, always the department under constant crunch time. Developing a complex site with vague specs across half a dozen minds isn't easy, but unlike all the other parts of the chain leading up to this point, it's the part where the client can be most punished if it's not done right, yet nobody ever sees the benefit of allowing sufficient time (and doing sufficient testing).
  • by derrickh ( 157646 ) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @01:14PM (#38292504) Homepage

    You have to realize that somewhere on the net there's a surveillance camera forum with guys saying 'businesses are too cheap to invest in multiple cam setups to cover exploitable deadzones'... and there's a locksmith forum with guys saying 'These companies are still relying on double bolt slide locks, when everyone knows they can be bypassed with a simple Krasner tool!'...and there's a car autosecurity forum wondering why companies still use basic Lo-jack instead of the new XYZ system.. and don't forget the personnel consulting forum where everyone complains that companies don't invest enough in training to recognize grifting attempts on employees.

    It's a never ending list and to expect everyone to be on top of all of them at all times is n't realistic.


  • by ray-auch ( 454705 ) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @01:38PM (#38292788)

    Where I work, every time we get told to put our details into some new provider system for expenses, business travel or whatever (happens regularly with corporate changes) we see who can hack it first. We're developers, it's our personal data, why wouldn't we check ?

    The fraction that are hacked in minutes is probably near 50%, and 32% for SQL injection is probably about right.

    I'm not sure which is more depressing - the state of the sites or that even though we have a "security" consultancy practice in house, we get corporate edicts to put our data into sites that we haven't even bothered to audit to the extent of sticking a single quote in a couple of form fields or changing the userid in the url...

  • Re:Nothing new here (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @04:26PM (#38294834) Homepage Journal

    the media never seem to hold the businesses who left the door open to account.

    To a point, I understand their logic: you don't blame the victim. But a company publishing SQL injections in 2011 should be dragged through the mud and humiliated. Maybe someone needs to start a newsroom consulting company where reporters call for technical clarification:

    Reporter: Hey, Amalgamated Bookends got hacked by someone who replaced the BIOS on their RAID cards with a webserver. Who's in the wrong?
    Consultant: Wow! That's a pretty ingenious trick. I hope they catch that hacker!

    Reporter: Hey, Shortcake, LTD got hacked by someone who added "?admin=true" to their website's URL. Is that bad?
    Consultant: See if Shortcake's sysadmin is somehow related to the owner. It bet it's his nephew.

    Reporter: Hey, Sony...
    Consultant: LOL dumbasses

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.