Threat Modeling Google group is now available

I’ve been using Microsoft’s Threat Analysis and Modeling (TAM) tool for about a year now, and I’ve gotten to really love how much easier and user-friendly this tool is than anything else I’ve found so far on the ‘net.  I’ve tried to find anything that was as comprehensive, easy for beginners, flexible and extensible as TAM is (let alone free), and there’s nothing else that even comes close.  Anytime I’m asked now to do any Threat Modeling for a product or technology, the only tool I would seriously consider is TAM.

That said, the more I work with it, I’m finding there are enhancements I’d like to make, or things I’d like to better understand:

  • What are the key steps that I should never skip?
  • What tools are useful for generating additional XSLT Report templates?
  • How does TAM merge overlapping content when importing Attack Libraries?
  • What extensibility classes are available for .NET-friendly developers to add to this tool?
  • What’s a reasonable number of Components or Attacks to include in any one threat model?

 I’ve worked with the TAM team at Microsoft to get some ideas on this, but they’re pretty much working flat-out on the Security Assessments for which they built this tool in the first place.  I’ve scoured their old blog entries (here, here and here) to glean tidbits, but I’d really like to work with more folks who are also using this – share what I’ve learned and get their input and ideas as well.

I’d hoped that Microsoft would have a Community forum for this great tool, but since they don’t, I’ve taken the bull by the horns and created one myself.  You can find it here on the Google Groups site.  Yes, Google.  Horrors!

I’ve tried to use MSN Spaces in the past as a collaboration workspace, but I’ve found Google Groups and Yahoo Groups are both better platforms for this sort of thing.  They give you more control, with less futzing around trying to make things “look right”, and they’re investing significant effort into these platforms.  Frankly, I’m a lazy guy at heart, and it was really freakin’ easy to setup the Google Group.  Sue me.

Call to Action: if you’re using Microsoft’s TAM tool already, or you know someone who’s responsible for things like “Secure Coding”, “Risk Assessments” or “Threat Modeling”, I’d encourage them to check out the Group, post some sample Files, start some Discussions or even just lurk for good ideas!

Advertisements

Threat Modeling using Microsoft’s TAM tool? Visit the new online forum

I’ve been working with Microsoft’s free Threat Analysis and Modeling Tool for most of the year, and I’ve lamented the fact that there’s no online forum/group where I can share questions, ideas or custom templates with other users of the tool.

Well screw that – now there is just such a group (’cause I just created it).

If you’ve used this tool for developing/documenting your Threat Models, or if you’re considering it, then please feel free to lurk or even participate in this online community.  I’ll be posting what I’ve learned so far in using this tool, making available some reusable templates and reports, and generally giving the new group the care & feeding these things usually require at the onset.

Hope to see you Threat Analysts there!

XSLT 1.0 defies the laws of physics – sucks AND blows simultaneously…

Holy crap, whoever came up with XSLT 1.0 must’ve really wanted me to suffer 🙂

I have spent the better part of a couple of weeks fighting with a simple piece of XSLT code to be able to generate some short, organized reports using the Microsoft Threat Analysis and Modelling tool (currently at v2.1.2).

It doesn’t help that the data model used by this tool has made a really poor choice in the way it classifies Threats:

  • The logical model would be to define an XPath like /ThreatModel/Threats/Threat[x], and then use an attribute or sub-element to assign the category of Threat
  • Instead, MS TAM v2.1.2 defines an XPath like this for each threat: /ThreatModel/Threats/$ThreatCategorys/Threats/$ThreatCategory
  • Thus, for a Confidentiality Threat, you get /ThreatModel/Threats/ConfidentialityThreats/Threats/ConfidentialityThreat

It certainly also doesn’t help that Microsoft has fallen behind all the other major XML engine vendors in implementing XSLT 2.0.  This article here indicates that not only did they wait to start any of the work until after the Recommendation was completed, but that they have NO planned ship vehicle or release date (despite the fact that XSLT 2.0 has been in the works for five years).

But really the fundamental problem that I (and about a million other people out there, over the last 7-8 years) am challenged by is the fact that you can’t pass what’s called an RTF (“Result Tree Fragment”) in an XPath 1.0 expression – the XSLT 1.0 standard just doesn’t allow dynamic evaluation of such an expression, AND they didn’t provide any reasonable way to actually get around the problem of RTFs.  It means that all the vendors providing engines to process XSL had to come up with their own extensions to handle this (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), and many people have also come up with creative (but horribly obtuse) ways to get around the problem.

So it goes – I’m stuck with (a) XSLT 1.0 & XPath 1.0 + proprietary “extension functions” [1], [2] in MSXML, because (b) the Microsoft TAM tool only uses the MSXML engine (which is fair – it’s gotta default to something).

What’s REALLY painful is learning that not only did I spend weeks banging my head against a wall learning some very obtuse and shouldn’t-be-necessary coding hacks to what in other languages are fairly trivial problems – but now I discover that it wasn’t even a question of RTFs at all, but rather that XSLT just ends up taking what I think is a reasonably well-thought-out design and dumping it on the floor:

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.xsl/browse_thread/thread/f3af4340991740e5

Oh, and how did the XSLT overlords solve this problem in XSLT 2.0?  The just eliminated the limitation on RTF in XPath expressions.  Done.  And done. 

Ugh – that’ll teach me to ever get lured into using a [functional?] programming language again.  Back to C# – that seems positively trivial by comparison…

SO: if you happen to have a masochistic streak in you, or you find that you absolutely must use XSLT 1.0 and not either XSLT 2.0 or System.xml.xsl, then (a) you have my sympathies and (b) here are some resources that I recommend you consult sooner than later: