Security Severity Ratings: Difference between revisions
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
! style="width:10%"| Description | ! style="width:10%"| Description | ||
|- | |- | ||
| csec- | |csec-bounds || client security issues due to incorrect boundary conditions (read or write) | ||
| | |- | ||
|csec-disclosure || Disclosure of sensitive user data, personal information, etc in a client product. | |||
|- | |||
|csec-dos || Used to tag client Denial of Service bugs. For web server denial of service bugs please use wsec-dos as these tend to be more severe. Search 28 | |||
|- | |||
|csec-intoverflow || client security issues due to integer overflow | |||
|- | |||
|csec-oom || A client crash or hang that occurs in Out Of Memory conditions Search 2 | |||
|- | |||
|csec-other || client security issues that don't fit into other categories | |||
|- | |||
|csec-priv-escalation || client privilege escalation security issues | |||
|- | |||
|csec-sop || violations of the client Same Origin Policy (Universal-XSS bugs, for example). | |||
|- | |||
|csec-uaf || client security issues due to a use-after-free Search 1 | |||
|- | |||
|csec-ui-redress || client security issues due to UI Redress attacks, either site-on-site ("clickjacking" and friends) or manipulation of the browser UI to fool users into taking the wrong action. | |||
|- | |||
|csec-uninitialized || client security issues due to use of uninitialized memory | |||
|- | |||
|csec-wildptr || client security issues due to pointer misuse not otherwise covered (see csec-uaf, csec-uninitialized, csec-intoverflow, csec-bounds) | |||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 151: | Line 172: | ||
! style="width:10%"| Description | ! style="width:10%"| Description | ||
|- | |- | ||
| wsec- | |wsec-authentication || Website or server authentication security issues (lockouts, password policy, etc) | ||
| | |- | ||
|wsec-authorization || web/server authorization security issues | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-cookie || Cookie related errors (HTTPOnly / Secure Flag, incorrect domain / path) | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-crossdomain || Issue such as x-frame-options, crossdomain.xml, cross site sharing settings | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-crypto || Crypto related items such as password hashing | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-csrf || Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) bugs in server products | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-disclosure || Disclosure of sensitive data, personal information, etc from a web service | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-dos || Used to denote web server Denial of Service bugs. For similar bugs in client software please use csec-dos instead. | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-errorhandling || Any error handling issue | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-impersonation || Impersonation / Spoofing attacks (UI Redress, etc) | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-injection || Injection attacks other than SQLi or XSS | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-input || Failure to perform input validation. Most often you will probably use the xss tag instead | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-logging || Logging issues such as requests for CEF log points. | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-other || web/server security issues that don't fit into other categories | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-session || Issues related to sesson management (Session fixation, etc) | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-sqli || SQL Injection | |||
|- | |||
|wsec-xss || Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) bugs in server products | |||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 21:31, 21 August 2012
Severity Ratings
Severity Ratings & Examples | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following items are keywords for the severity of an issue.
If there are mitigating circumstances that severely reduce the effectiveness of the exploit, then the exploit could be reduced by one level of severity. Examples of mitigating circumstances include difficulty in reproducing due to very specific timing or load order requirements, complex or unusual set of actions the user would have to take beyond normal browsing behaviors, or unusual software configuration. As a rough guide, to be considered for reduction in severity an exploit should execute successfully less than 10% of the time. If measures can be taken to improve the reliability of the exploit to over 10% (by combining it with other existing bugs or techniques), then it should not be considered to be mitigated. |
Additional Status Codes or Whiteboard Tracking Tags
If a potential security issue has not yet been assigned a severity rating, or a rating is not appropriate, the whiteboard may instead contain one of the following security status codes.
Shared Keywords | ||
---|---|---|
Code | Description | Examples |
sec-audit | Bug requires a code audit to investigate potential security problems. | Look for pattern x in library y
Audit file z for string buffer abuse. |
sec-vector | Flaws not in Mozilla controlled software, but can cause security problems for Mozilla users. | Bugs in plugins
Bugs in system libraries used by Firefox |
sec-want | New features or improvement ideas related to security | User interface refinements
Support for new types of authentication Code refactoring / cleanup |
sec-incident | Issues resulting in an incident response or 'chemspill' actions by the security team. | Sever compromise
Code issues that would cause client code to be respun. |
A security review is needed for the bug, this could mean a variety of things. If there is no secr:<username> in the whiteboard the item has not been triaged and action is unknown. Once triaged a note will be placed in the bug as to the action to be taken | ||
The security review / actions desired have been completed. This will result in either a link to the notes from security actions or a note from the assigned resource in the bug. |
Group Keywords | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Code | Description | Examples | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
csec- | Client Security (ie. Firefox, Thunderbird, etc) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wsec- | Web Security (Web Sites, Web Services, etc) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
opsec- | Operations Security (Mozilla owned & operated severs and services) |
|
Whiteboard Tags | ||
---|---|---|
Code | Description | Examples |
sec-assigned:UserAlias | This designates the assigned security resource that is accountable for actions to be taken on the designated item. When possible the bug will be assigned to the security contact for action. This will be used when that is not possible or practical. | [sg-assigned:curtisk] indicates that curtisk is the accountable party for action |
[Q2] | This designates a bug as being identified as a request to be done or targeted for a given operational quarter. If no year is given it is for the current year. | [Q2] indicates second quarter of the current calendar year, [Q1-2013] would be used to indicate a target for an upcoming quarter that has not occurred. |
[k90] | This designates a bug as being part of the Kilimanjaro effort so that it can be tracked, triaged and given appropriate priority and attention. | |
[basecamp] | This designates a bug as being part of the basecamp sub effort of the Kilimanjaro effort. | |
[fennec] | This designates a bug as being a critical bug for the efforts around our mobile browser project. This could be combined with either the [k9o] or [basecamp] tags as a bug could be part of both. |
Feature Page Codes | ||
---|---|---|
Code | Description | Examples |
sec-review-needed | A security review is needed for the feature, this could mean a variety of things. If there is no <username> in the notes then a full review needs to be scheduled, if a <username> is present than that person will follow-up with the feature team on whatever task is needed. | |
sec-review-complete | The security review / actions desired have been completed. This will result in a link to the notes from security actions or a note from the assigned resource. | |
sec-review-active | There are active tasks associated with the review that are yet to be completed in order for the review to be seen as completed. These will be captured in the "Action Items" section of the review notes. | |
sec-review-sched | Security review tasks have been scheduled, if this is a full security review the date of the scheduled review will be present in the security notes. | |
sec-review-unnecessary | After triage it was felt the feature needed no review or security actions. | |
Security health: <blank> | There are no notes or status is unknown. | Color: <None> |
Security health: OK | The tasks are on schedule or completed and are considered non-blocking. | Color: Green |
Security health: Blocked | Some aspect of the security review has given cause to block the feature from further work or landing. The reasons will be listed in the security notes or linked to a larger review outcome for follow-up. | Color: Yellow |
Security health: At Risk | Some aspect of the security review may cause the feature to be blocked or put the feature at risk of being off schedule.The reasons will be listed in the security notes or linked to a larger review outcome for follow-up. | Color: Red |
Security health: Assigned | Security tasks have been assigned to a member of the team to followup. The name of this resource will be in the security notes. | Color: Teal |
Priority Matrix (primarily OpSec) |
---|
by this issue and it should be resolved immediatly. Examples:
Examples:
Examples:
|