Stanford Software Security Foundations
Last year I took the Software Security Foundations course, the first course in Stanford University’s Advanced Computer Security certificate program:6 courses, all offered online, on-demand.Foundations is a basic introduction to software security for developers and technical managers. This course was designed by (and principally delivered by)
Neil Daswani a former security program manager at Google, a Stanford alumni, and now a principal at Dasient, a web computer security startup.
The course is based on Mr. Daswani’s book Foundations of Computer Security: What Every Programmer Needs to Know: it is useful to have a copy of the book handy while going through the course. Foundations is a day’s worth of lectures made available as online videos for a 3-month period, with slides that can be downloaded for printing, and an exam at the end to ensure that you aren’t lazy about following the material. It covers the fundamentals of software security, including:
Security Principles
Authentication, authorization, access control, confidentiality, data integrity, non-repudiation, risk management, and secure system design principles including least privilege, fail-safe and defense-in-depth. Good, but no real surprises here.
Secure Programming
Buffer overflows, SQL injection, password management, cross site request forgery, cross site scripting, and common mistakes in crypto. There was good coverage of SQL injection and cross domain security threats, particularly XSRF. However I found the explanation of Cross Site Scripting confusing, even after reading through the section on cross domain security in the book – it’s not a straightforward problem, ok, but it can be explained in a simpler way. The examples and problems are biased slightly towards C/C++ programmers, but this should not present a problem for programmers working in other environments. It covers most of the important bases with the exception of input validation, which needs more attention.
Introduction to Cryptography
A walkthrough of symmetric encryption and public key cryptography, and then a brief discussion of advanced research in cryptography from Stanford Professor Dan Boneh, an expert in applied cryptography. The explanation of cryptographic primitives was especially lucid, and, well beautiful: I didn’t know that cipher block chaining could be beautiful, but it is. Some of the more advanced issues in cryptography are covered at a cursory level only (not a lot of it will stick with you if you aren’t already familiar with this subject), and you are referred to other courses offered in the program if you want to get a good, basic understanding of how to use cryptography and secure protocols.
SANS Software Security Awareness
In January I checked out the On Demand Software Security Awareness course from the SANS Institute.I have had success with other courses from SANS before, classroom and On Demand. In particular the course SANS Security Leadership Essentials for Managers is excellent: a challenging and exhaustive 6-day course covering pretty much everything a technical manager would need to know about IT security from technical, project management, risk management, strategic, and legal and ethical perspectives.
Software Security Awareness is a short, 3-hour survey course, offered online as recorded audio lectures and a slide show. SANS prints and binds a copy of the slides and couriers a copy to you shortly after you register for the course. The course covers:
- vulnerability/patch cycle
- security architecture
- principles of software security
- security design
- implementation (coding and deployment)
- input issues
- code review and security testing.
Unfortunately, the course does not start out strong: the walkthrough of the vulnerability/patch cycle is supposed to help build a case for secure software development, but it takes too long to make too fine a point, and it’s hard to stay interested.
The next sections on architecture, principles of software security, and design are confused by a weakness in organization. It’s not clear where architecture ends and design begins, and there is unnecessary repetition between the sections. It would flow better if the discussion started with foundational principles of software security (which are well covered in the course), then proceeding through architecture and then design. Architecture should cover security requirements, risk analysis and threat modeling to determine “how much security is enough”, defense-in-depth, attack surface analysis and minimizing attack surface, complexity and economy of mechanism, cost considerations, and layering and defining trust zones. Some of these issues are covered in the discussion on architecture, some in design, some in both, and some not at all.
The risk assessment discussion surveys different risk modeling techniques, including Microsoft’s STRIDE and DREAD, OCTAVE and others. It includes a recommendation for SALSA, an initiative which SANS seems to have started together with another vendor back in 2007 and which has gone nowhere since. SALSA doesn’t belong with the other established models.
The section on design covers security requirements (again) and some general motherhood on good design practices, then briefly touches on authentication, authorization and permissioning, non-repudiation and auditing, and data confidentiality, but doesn’t explore any of these important areas further in the context of design. This is one area where the Stanford course is much stronger.
The discussion of implementation is good, starting with an explanation of Gary McGraw’s 7 Kingdoms and then a long list of implementation-specific issues, which may or may not apply to your system, but anyways offers some concrete guidance which may catch the attention of programmers.
Then an excellent, brief exploration of input handling problems, recognizing the importance of not trusting data. And a (too) brief discussion of cryptography in the context of storing confidential data.
Finally, one of the strongest parts of the course, on security code review practices and security testing. Starting with an explanation of why and how to do code reviews (including formal inspections and tool-assisted code reviews), and references to language-specific checklists. Then a discussion of static analysis and a survey of different tools: a bit out of date, missing Microsoft’s SDL tools for example, but a decent overview of available static analysis tools. Then a good survey of testing techniques from a security perspective, including fuzzing and pen testing and risk-based testing, and finally a discussion of attack surface analysis (which more properly belongs in the architecture section).
You have 4 months to complete the 3 hour course, which is more than adequate. Because this was a beta of a new course and a new online delivery model, there was no assessment included.
Comparison of the courses
It was interesting to see that, except for a common focus on basic secure software principles, the courses took different, almost complementary approaches to introducing secure software development.The SANS course was much more broad and current, with more references to resources like OWASP and frameworks and tools, and more on secure SDLC practices. There were some notable gaps in the SANS course, in architecture and especially design, and it suffers from some structural weaknesses, but it covers many of the bases, and important concepts such as secure error handling, failing safe, input handling, and risk management and threat modeling techniques. With a few improvements in structure and content around architecture and design, this would be an excellent course. As it stands, if I can get the developers past the introduction on the vulnerability cycle, they should learn some useful things.
The Stanford course is more than twice as long and more focused, but doesn’t touch on secure SDLC practices such as reviews and security testing, or risk assessment and threat modeling. It digs deeper into specific security implementation problems such as XSRF, XSS, password management, and SQL injection; and it is also stronger in its coverage of basic secure design, and especially cryptography. This course would be of special interest to developers who want to go on with the full Advanced Security Program at Stanford.
Neither of these courses is perfect, but they are both professionally delivered, and offer good value for the money.
Check out also the Microsoft SDL related courses and sources of information, especially from the companies in SDL Pro Network:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.microsoft.com/security/sdl/getstarted/pronetwork.aspx
... and our fuzzing specific information here (as you probably don't find that anywhere else yet):
http://www.codenomicon.com/sdl-fuzzing/overview.shtml
Yes, this course is surely special for the developers who want to go on with the full Advanced Security Program at Stanford.
ReplyDeletelovely post!! I have read some of your posts and is really impressed. I am adding your blog to my RSS Feed reader.
ReplyDeleteVery useful post, security awareness training and the information security training has very demand now a days.
ReplyDeleteVery useful thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThank you
And how hard was the exam on the Stanford course?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous, the exams on the Stanford security program were not especially difficult - they are designed to test that you are paying attention to the course, so some of them are detailed and specific.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what the exams are like for the Open Online courses in encryption that Dan Boneh from Stanford offers through Coursera, but that's another (and obviously free!) option for people who want to focus on encryption (and there is apparently a computer security course also in the works):
https://www.coursera.org/instructor/~85
http://www.mooc-list.com/instructor/dan-boneh