User:Tritter/Working/Web Security Severity Ratings
Severity Ratings
In all cases, the severity of server and web application bugs is dependent on the critically of the service and the value of the data that could be compromised. Thus while the table below provides very broad guideliens, they cannot be directly used to determine the severity of a bug absent the consideration of the affected service.
Severity Ratings & Examples | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following items are keywords for the severity of an issue.
|
Additional Status Codes, Whiteboard Tracking Tags & Flags
Alternate Keywords
Often none of the above severity ratings apply to a bug, because it is not a vulnerability but nonetheless is security sensitive and needs to be kept private. These keywords apply to those.
Alternate Keywords & Examples | ||
---|---|---|
|
A historical keyword is sec-incident, which is no longer used. sec-want, sec-audit, and sec-vector are not used for Web client bugs.
wsectype- Keywords
csectype- keywords are assigned to bugs to indicate the type of a vulnerability. Ideally these would be assigned to every vulnerability, but frequently they are not. While we request that only the security team assign sec-high and similar ratings, if you feel you can identify the type of a security bug we encourage you to classify it yourself.
Code | Description |
---|---|
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 csectype-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-ssrf | Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) bugs in server products. CWE-918 |
wsec-xss | Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) bugs in server products |
opsectype- Keywords
opsectype- keywords are assigned to bugs relating to Operations Security (Mozilla owned & operated severs and services)
Code | Description |
---|---|
opsec-access | The identified issue is an access violation. |
Whiteboard Tags
Whiteboard Tags | ||
---|---|---|
Code | Description | Examples |
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. | sec-review?:curtisk@blah.bah 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. | |
[triage needed] | Used to mark a bug for weekly triage meeting. | |
Indicates a secreview or tasks related to said review are yet to be completed. | ||
[start mm/dd/yyyy][target mm/dd/yyyy] | This indicates that expected dates to start and complete work on a given review or security bug. | [start 01/29/2013][target 02/09/2013] indicates work will start on 29-Jan and expected target for completion on 09-Feb |
Indicates the given secreview or related tasks have been completed | ||
mentorship | Indicates that a given bug is part of our security mentorship program. The assignee of said bug is the Mozilla mentor for such a bug. | |
This indicates the relative severity score for risk rating bugs per the calculator at https://people.mozilla.com/~ckoenig/ | [score:30:moderate] shows that the issue has a numerical score of 30 and a severity of moderate. | |
[Web] | Indicates an item related to our Web properties | |
u= c= p= | These items are used to allow bugs to be tracked by scrumbu.gs for work tracking (more info). | |
s= | This tag is used in conjunction with the scrumbu.gs tags above to indicate which sprint a given bug has been assigned. | s=13q4.1 indicates the bug is in the year 2013, 4th quarter and sprint 1. Each sprint is 2 weeks long and it's calendar dates can be tracked on scrumbu.gs |
Feature Page Codes
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 |
Flags
Flags | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flag | Description | Settings | ||||||||
sec-review | Security review - Requesting action from the security assurance team or showing the results of said action |
| ||||||||
sec-bounty | Shows the status of a bug with regards to a bounty payout per our bounty guidlines |
| ||||||||
sec-bounty-hof | Shows the status of a bug with regards to a bounty hall of fame entry |
|