Control Objective
Ensure that a verified application satisfies the following high level requirements:
- All cryptographic modules fail in a secure manner and that errors are handled correctly.
- A suitable random number generator is used.
- Access to keys is securely managed.
V6.1 Data Classification
The most important asset is the data processed, stored or transmitted by an application. Always perform a privacy impact assessment to classify the data protection needs of any stored data correctly.
| # | Description | L1 | L2 | L3 | CWE |
| 6.1.1 | Verify that regulated private data is stored encrypted while at rest, such as Personally Identifiable Information (PII), sensitive personal information, or data assessed likely to be subject to EU’s GDPR. | ✓ | ✓ | 311 | |
| 6.1.2 | Verify that regulated health data is stored encrypted while at rest, such as medical records, medical device details, or de-anonymized research records. | ✓ | ✓ | 311 | |
| 6.1.3 | Verify that regulated financial data is stored encrypted while at rest, such as financial accounts, defaults or credit history, tax records, pay history, beneficiaries, or de-anonymized market or research records. | ✓ | ✓ | 311 |
V6.2 Algorithms
Recent advances in cryptography mean that previously safe algorithms and key lengths are no longer safe or sufficient to protect data. Therefore, it should be possible to change algorithms.
Although this section is not easily penetration tested, developers should consider this entire section as mandatory even though L1 is missing from most of the items.
| # | Description | L1 | L2 | L3 | CWE |
| 6.2.1 | Verify that all cryptographic modules fail securely, and errors are handled in a way that does not enable Padding Oracle attacks. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 310 |
| 6.2.2 | Verify that industry proven or government approved cryptographic algorithms, modes, and libraries are used, instead of custom coded cryptography. (C8) | ✓ | ✓ | 327 | |
| 6.2.3 | Verify that encryption initialization vector, cipher configuration, and block modes are configured securely using the latest advice. | ✓ | ✓ | 326 | |
| 6.2.4 | Verify that random number, encryption or hashing algorithms, key lengths, rounds, ciphers or modes, can be reconfigured, upgraded, or swapped at any time, to protect against cryptographic breaks. (C8) | ✓ | ✓ | 326 | |
| 6.2.5 | Verify that known insecure block modes (i.e. ECB, etc.), padding modes (i.e. PKCS#1 v1.5, etc.), ciphers with small block sizes (i.e. Triple-DES, Blowfish, etc.), and weak hashing algorithms (i.e. MD5, SHA1, etc.) are not used unless required for backwards compatibility. | ✓ | ✓ | 326 | |
| 6.2.6 | Verify that nonces, initialization vectors, and other single use numbers must not be used more than once with a given encryption key. The method of generation must be appropriate for the algorithm being used. | ✓ | ✓ | 326 | |
| 6.2.7 | Verify that encrypted data is authenticated via signatures, authenticated cipher modes, or HMAC to ensure that ciphertext is not altered by an unauthorized party. | ✓ | 326 | ||
| 6.2.8 | Verify that all cryptographic operations are constant-time, with no ‘short-circuit’ operations in comparisons, calculations, or returns, to avoid leaking information. | ✓ | 385 |
V6.3 Random Values
True Pseudo-random Number Generation (PRNG) is incredibly difficult to get right. Generally, good sources of entropy within a system will be quickly depleted if over-used, but sources with less randomness can lead to predictable keys and secrets.
| # | Description | L1 | L2 | L3 | CWE |
| 6.3.1 | Verify that all random numbers, random file names, random GUIDs, and random strings are generated using the cryptographic module’s approved cryptographically secure random number generator when these random values are intended to be not guessable by an attacker. | ✓ | ✓ | 338 | |
| 6.3.2 | Verify that random GUIDs are created using the GUID v4 algorithm, and a Cryptographically-secure Pseudo-random Number Generator (CSPRNG). GUIDs created using other pseudo-random number generators may be predictable. | ✓ | ✓ | 338 | |
| 6.3.3 | Verify that random numbers are created with proper entropy even when the application is under heavy load, or that the application degrades gracefully in such circumstances. | ✓ | 338 |
V6.4 Secret Management
Although this section is not easily penetration tested, developers should consider this entire section as mandatory even though L1 is missing from most of the items.
| # | Description | L1 | L2 | L3 | CWE |
| 6.4.1 | Verify that a secrets management solution such as a key vault is used to securely create, store, control access to and destroy secrets. (C8) | ✓ | ✓ | 798 | |
| 6.4.2 | Verify that key material is not exposed to the application but instead uses an isolated security module like a vault for cryptographic operations. (C8) | ✓ | ✓ | 320 |
References
For more information, see also:
- OWASP Testing Guide 4.0: Testing for weak Cryptography
- OWASP Cheat Sheet: Cryptographic Storage
- FIPS 140-2
What is the ASVS?
The OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) Project provides a basis for testing web application technical security controls and also provides developers with a list of requirements for secure development.
The primary aim of the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) Project is to normalize the range in the coverage and level of rigor available in the market when it comes to performing Web application security verification using a commercially-workable open standard. The standard provides a basis for testing application technical security controls, as well as any technical security controls in the environment, that are relied on to protect against vulnerabilities such as Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) and SQL injection. This standard can be used to establish a level of confidence in the security of Web applications. The requirements were developed with the following objectives in mind:
- Use as a metric – Provide application developers and application owners with a yardstick with which to assess the degree of trust that can be placed in their Web applications,
- Use as guidance – Provide guidance to security control developers as to what to build into security controls in order to satisfy application security requirements, and
- Use during procurement – Provide a basis for specifying application security verification requirements in contracts.
Using the OWASP ASVS
OWASP ASVS has two main goals:
- to help organizations develop and maintain secure applications.
- to allow security service vendors, security tools vendors, and consumers to align their requirements and offerings.
Application Security Verification Levels
The Application Security Verification Standard defines three security verification levels, with each level increasing in depth.
- ASVS Level 1 is for low assurance levels, and is completely penetration testable
- ASVS Level 2 is for applications that contain sensitive data, which requires protection and is the recommended level for most apps
- ASVS Level 3 is for the most critical applications – applications that perform high value transactions, contain sensitive medical data, or any application that requires the highest level of trust.
Each ASVS level contains a list of security requirements. Each of these requirements can also be mapped to security-specific features and capabilities that must be built into software by developers.
Level 1 is the only level that is completely penetration testable using humans. All others require access to documentation, source code, configuration, and the people involved in the development process. However, even if L1 allows “black box” (no documentation and no source) testing to occur, it is not an effective assurance activity and should be actively discouraged. Malicious attackers have a great deal of time, most penetration tests are over within a couple of weeks. Defenders need to build in security controls, protect, find and resolve all weaknesses, and detect and respond to malicious actors in a reasonable time. Malicious actors have essentially infinite time and only require a single porous defense, a single weakness, or missing detection to succeed. Black box testing, often performed at the end of development, quickly, or not at all, is completely unable to cope with that asymmetry.
Over the last 30+ years, black box testing has proven over and over again to miss critical security issues that led directly to ever more massive breaches. We strongly encourage the use of a wide range of security assurance and verification, including replacing penetration tests with source code led (hybrid) penetration tests at Level 1, with full access to developers and documentation throughout the development process. Financial regulators do not tolerate external financial audits with no access to the books, sample transactions, or the people performing the controls. Industry and governments must demand the same standard of transparency in the software engineering field.
We strongly encourage the use of security tools within the development process itself. DAST and SAST tools can be used continuously by the build pipeline to find easy to find security issues that should never be present.
Automated tools and online scans are unable to complete more than half of the ASVS without human assistance. If comprehensive test automation for each build is required, then a combination of custom unit and integration tests, along with build initiated online scans are used. Business logic flaws and access control testing is only possible using human assistance. These should be turned into unit and integration tests.
How to use this standard
One of the best ways to use the Application Security Verification Standard is to use it as a blueprint to create a Secure Coding Checklist specific to your application, platform or organization. Tailoring the ASVS to your use cases will increase the focus on the security requirements that are most important to your projects and environments.
Level 1 – First steps, automated, or whole of portfolio view
An application achieves ASVS Level 1 if it adequately defends against application security vulnerabilities that are easy to discover, and included in the OWASP Top 10 and other similar checklists.
Level 1 is the bare minimum that all applications should strive for. It is also useful as a first step in a multi-phase effort or when applications do not store or handle sensitive data and therefore do not need the more rigorous controls of Level 2 or 3. Level 1 controls can be checked either automatically by tools or simply manually without access to source code. We consider Level 1 the minimum required for all applications.
Threats to the application will most likely be from attackers who are using simple and low effort techniques to identify easy-to-find and easy-to-exploit vulnerabilities. This is in contrast to a determined attacker who will spend focused energy to specifically target the application. If data processed by your application has high value, you would rarely want to stop at a Level 1 review.
Level 2 – Most applications
An application achieves ASVS Level 2 (or Standard) if it adequately defends against most of the risks associated with software today.
Level 2 ensures that security controls are in place, effective, and used within the application. Level 2 is typically appropriate for applications that handle significant business-to-business transactions, including those that process healthcare information, implement business-critical or sensitive functions, or process other sensitive assets, or industries where integrity is a critical facet to protect their business, such as the game industry to thwart cheaters and game hacks.
Threats to Level 2 applications will typically be skilled and motivated attackers focusing on specific targets using tools and techniques that are highly practiced and effective at discovering and exploiting weaknesses within applications.
Level 3 – High value, high assurance, or high safety
ASVS Level 3 is the highest level of verification within the ASVS. This level is typically reserved for applications that require significant levels of security verification, such as those that may be found within areas of military, health and safety, critical infrastructure, etc.
Organizations may require ASVS Level 3 for applications that perform critical functions, where failure could significantly impact the organization’s operations, and even its survivability. Example guidance on the application of ASVS Level 3 is provided below. An application achieves ASVS Level 3 (or Advanced) if it adequately defends against advanced application security vulnerabilities and also demonstrates principles of good security design.
An application at ASVS Level 3 requires more in depth analysis of architecture, coding, and testing than all the other levels. A secure application is modularized in a meaningful way (to facilitate resiliency, scalability, and most of all, layers of security), and each module (separated by network connection and/or physical instance) takes care of its own security responsibilities (defense in depth), that need to be properly documented. Responsibilities include controls for ensuring confidentiality (e.g. encryption), integrity (e.g. transactions, input validation), availability (e.g. handling load gracefully), authentication (including between systems), non-repudiation, authorization, and auditing (logging).
Source: https://owasp.org/www-project-application-security-verification-standard/
Note: The OWASP ASVS, related copyright and trademarks belong to its owner OWASP. This guide is for educational purposes only and will be expanded beyond the original version provided by OWASP.