Cover photo by Look Up Look Down Photography on Unsplash.
This is part two of the SBOM story which covers the consuming side. If you missed part one, you can find it here.
One would assume that with a standardized format the combinations of generator and consumer are interchangeable, but as noted previously, the SBOMs still vary in content and attributes.
Cover photo by @possessedphotography on Unsplash.
The OWASP Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) can be a powerful tool for pentesters and AppSec testing. However, some of its functionality can be a bit hard to wrap your head around at first. In this post, we will describe how to use one of the more powerful features of the software: Authentication and session management. First, we will show you how to develop an authentication script for a new, previously-unsupported authentication scheme, using the graphical ZAP interface. Afterwards, we will dive into how the same can be achieved inside the secureCodeBox using the newly-supported ZAP Automation Framework.
Cover photo by Mike Lewis HeadSmart Media on Unsplash.
In the previous blogpost we described how to use scans to find infrastructure affected by Log4Shell, but wouldn't it be way more convenient to already have this information available? SBOMs promise to offer that convenience of only having to look up, where an affected dependency is used, and immediately being able to mitigate it. This blog post details our plans to integrate an SBOM creation workflow into the secureCodeBox and our troubles with using different tools for it.
Cover photo by Ray Shrewsberry on Unsplash.
By now, you must have heard about Log4Shell, the present that ruined Christmas for many developers and IT specialists, whether naughty or nice. This blog describes how we used the secureCodeBox as one building block in our incident response process at iteratec.
Cover photo by Agence Olloweb on Unsplash.
With secureCodeBox 3.3, we have added several features that allow you to use secureCodeBox for static application security testing (SAST). This blog post gives an introduction to how several new features of secureCodeBox 3.3 can be used to quickly run targeted SAST scans of your entire codebase. By the end of this post, you will know how to build a SAST workflow to detect which of your repositories include a malicious dependency. We will cover all steps of the process: obtaining a list of all software repositories in your organization, cloning and scanning them, and even dropping all of the results into a DefectDojo instance for later inspection.
Cover photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash.
Learn how our core development team works and about how to collaborate with us!
Cover photo by Alex Wong on Unsplash.
In a previous post I described the rationale behind our decision to abandon the secureCodeBox v1 and redesign the whole architecture. In this post I'll go into the details of this redesigned architecture.
Cover photo by Evan Dennis on Unsplash.
In this article I will give you a deeper insight why we decided to make a major breaking rewrite of the secureCodeBox. First I'll give you an overview of the v1 architecture and the rationale behind. Also outline the problems we stumbled upon using secureCodeBox v1 for some years now. Afterwards I introduce you to the new secureCodeBox v2 architecture and the rationale behind.
As documented we only support the latest four releases of Kubernetes. This means we removed support for Kubernetes 1.16 with the secureCodeBox release 2.3.0.
If you rely on that particular version of Kubernetes, we may help you with custom paid support. Please contact us via email or open an GitHub issue.
