Comments
AppSec in the World of 'Serverless'
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
boristcell
50%
50%
boristcell,
User Rank: Author
6/25/2018 | 5:09:41 PM
Re: Overwhelmed by servers and serverless = loss of data control
Good points. To me, "serverless" is more a sub-category of "cloud." To be sure, security concerns using serverless also can apply to cloud services in general. The article you reference is a good description of thinking through data handling and controls in general, such as by the practice of storing passwords using bcrypt, rather than in cleartext to limit the damage of data loss. That applies regardless of what infrastructure or programming model one chooses. It goes to illustrate that in the end, security fundamentals don't change; the art is in the application of those principles as the landscape changes.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/22/2018 | 6:08:21 PM
Overwhelmed by servers and serverless = loss of data control
To a certain extent, "serverless" is becoming a fancy word for "cloud". And at some point, data has to get stored and processed on some server somewhere, serverless or no. The phenomenon you describe here is similar to the loss of data-control issues in an SDLC similar to those recently discussed on Dark Reading, here: darkreading.com/putting-the-s-in-sdlc-do-you-know-where-your-data-is/a/d-id/1331185


What We Talk About When We Talk About Risk
Jack Jones, Chairman, FAIR Institute,  7/11/2018
Ticketmaster Breach Part of Massive Payment Card Hacking Campaign
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  7/10/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14084
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for MKCB, an Ethereum token. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell().
CVE-2018-14085
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for UserWallet 0x0a7bca9FB7AfF26c6ED8029BB6f0F5D291587c42, an Ethereum token. First, suppose that the owner adds the evil contract address to his sweepers. The evil contract looks like this: contract Exploit { uint public start; function swe...
CVE-2018-14086
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for SingaporeCoinOrigin (SCO), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell(...
CVE-2018-14087
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for EUC (EUC), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of buyPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "msg.value * buyPrice" will cause an integer overflow in the fallback functio...
CVE-2018-14088
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for STeX White List (STE(WL)), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of amount to a large number then the "amount * 1000000000000000" will cause an integer overflow in withdrawToFounde...