DEVELOPMENT OF A WEB APPLICATION SECURITY

METRICS
AND
REPORTING FRAMEWORK (WASMERF)
 TABLE OF CONTENT
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENT...............................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
1.1 Research Objective:.....................................................................................................................5
1.2 Research Questions:....................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................7
2.1 Overview of Web Application Security Metrics:.........................................................................7
2.2 Existing Frameworks and Approaches for Web Application Security Measurement:................7
2.3 Analysis of Reporting Requirements Frameworks:.....................................................................7
CHAPTER 3: NEED FOR WEB APPLICATION SECURITY...........................................................................9
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................11
4.1 Web Application - Selection of security metrics:......................................................................11
4.2 Design and Development of the (WASMARF) Framework:......................................................12
4.3 Integration of Data Collection Mechanisms.............................................................................13
4.3 Validation and Testing Procedures...........................................................................................14
CHAPTER 5: SECURITY METRICS..........................................................................................................16
5.1 Age of Vulnerabilities................................................................................................................16
5.2 New Vulnerabilities Introduced................................................................................................18
5.3 Average Time to Fix...................................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 6: SECURITY METRICS DATA GATHERING............................................................................22
CHAPTER 7: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF WASMARF FRAMEWORK...........................................24
7.1 Architecture and Components of the Framework:...................................................................24
7.2 Data aggregation and processing:...........................................................................................28
7.3 User interface design for reporting and analysis:....................................................................29
CHAPTER 8: FEED SECURITY METRICS DATA TO REPORTING PLATFORM...........................................38
8.1 Feeding Common Weakness & Countermeasure Data:............................................................38
8.2 Mapping Weakness with Profiles.............................................................................................39
8.3 Mapping Weakness with Components.....................................................................................40
CHAPTER 9: VALIDATION & TESTING..................................................................................................43
CHAPTER 10: APPLICATION DEPLOYMENT..........................................................................................49
CHAPTER 11: CONCULSION.................................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 12: REFERENCES..................................................................................................................52
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Vulnerability Age Metrics......................................................................................................16
Figure 2: Security Metrics Information Gathering...............................................................................23
Figure 3: WASMARF Architecture........................................................................................................28
Figure 4: WASMARF: Dashboard..........................................................................................................30
Figure 5: WASMARF: Profiles...............................................................................................................31
Figure 6: WASMARF: Built-in Components..........................................................................................31
Figure 7: WASMARF: Built-in Weakness...............................................................................................31
Figure 8: WASMARF: Built-in Weakness...............................................................................................32
Figure 9: WASMARF: Built-in Categories..............................................................................................32
Figure 10:WASMARF: Built-in Phases...................................................................................................32
Figure 11:WASMARF: Built-in Classifications.......................................................................................33
Figure 12:WASMARF: Built-in Risk Policies..........................................................................................33
Figure 13: Create Weakness................................................................................................................38
Figure 14: Create Countermeasure......................................................................................................39
Figure 15: Create Profile......................................................................................................................39
Figure 16:Profile View..........................................................................................................................40
Figure 17: Import Weakness to Profiles...............................................................................................40
Figure 18: Create Component..............................................................................................................41
Figure 19: Component Details.............................................................................................................41
Figure 20: Import weakness to component.........................................................................................42
Figure 21:Create Project......................................................................................................................44
Figure 22:Project Details......................................................................................................................44
Figure 23: Project Dashboard..............................................................................................................45
Figure 24: Project Components...........................................................................................................45
Figure 25: Import Project Components...............................................................................................46
Figure 26: Imported Components........................................................................................................46
Figure 27: Component Weakness........................................................................................................47
Figure 28: Weakness Countermeasure................................................................................................47
Figure 29: Generated Report...............................................................................................................48
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In today’s digital era web applications have become essential part of every business, the
operating model of a model has become simpler and achieve its objectives much faster by
using web applications. However, the complexity and interconnectedness of web
applications has made them vulnerable to various security threats. Web application
breaches can have serious consequences, including unauthorized access to sensitive data,
loss of revenue, damage to reputation and legal ramifications.

To mitigate these risks, companies want to undertake proactive security measures and
continuously display the safety posture in their net programs. Traditional security
procedures, which include firewalls and intrusion detection structures, are no longer
sufficient to protect against sophisticated internet application attacks. A more complete and
systematic technique is needed to discover vulnerabilities, check protection practices, and
prioritize remediation efforts effectively.

The development of a web application security metric, reporting framework addresses this
need by providing a structured and standardized approach for evaluating the security of web
applications Such a framework offers several advantages:

Measurement of Security Effectiveness: A metrics framework permits companies to degree

the effectiveness of their security features by way of quantifying numerous components of
net utility security. It affords a structured approach to evaluate protection controls, discover
gaps, and song improvements over time.

Informed Decision-Making: With a metrics and reporting framework in location,

stakeholders could make knowledgeable choices about allocating sources, prioritizing
security tasks, and assessing the overall danger posture of web applications. It permits them
to recognize the impact of safety vulnerabilities and prioritize remediation efforts based on
threat levels.

Standardized Evaluation: A framework presents a standardized approach to assess the

security posture of web packages continually. It defines a fixed of metrics and criteria that
may be used throughout specific projects and organizations, taking into account significant
comparisons and benchmarking.

Enhanced Security Awareness: A metrics and reporting framework raises protection

consciousness among builders, testers, and different stakeholders involved inside the net
application improvement lifecycle. It establishes a not unusual language and know-how of
protection metrics, great practices, and vulnerabilities, promoting a protection-centered
attitude in the course of the agency.

Compliance and Regulations: Many industries are concern to regulatory requirements and
requirements that mandate the protection of touchy statistics. A metrics framework assists
corporations in demonstrating compliance by using offering evidence of safety controls and
their effectiveness.

1.1 Research Objective:

The primary goal of this research is to develop a standardized Web Application Security
Metrics and Reporting Framework (WASMERF) that enable organization to assess and
enhance the current security posture if their web applications. To obtain this overarching
goal, the subsequent particular studies objectives are defined:

Identify and analyse existing web-application security frameworks and metrics:

In the pursuit of enhancing web application security, the initial stride of this research
involves a comprehensive exploration of the existing terrain. This particular study objective
entails a twofold journey: identification and analysis. Let's venture into the heart of this
endeavour, understanding its significance and intricacies.

Define a comprehensive set of web application security metrics:

Imagine a landscape dotted with vulnerabilities, risks, and countermeasures. This task
involves crafting metrics that capture these facets—an endeavour akin to painting security in
measurable strokes. These metrics encompass more than mere numbers; they encapsulate
the essence of the security posture—embracing weaknesses, resilience, and potential
threats.
Design & develop a reporting framework:

Amid the vast landscape of web application security, a pivotal chapter unfolds—the design
and development of a reporting framework. This study objective unveils a journey that
transforms raw data into actionable insights—a voyage that bridges the chasm between
information and strategic decision-making. Let's immerse ourselves in the essence of this
endeavour, understanding its significance and the intricacies it entails.

1.2 Research Questions:

The primary goal of this research is to develop a standardized Web Application Security
Metrics and Reporting.

● What are the existing web application security frameworks and metrics, and what are

their strengths, limitations, and applicability?

● What specific aspects of web application security should be covered by the proposed

Web Application Security Metrics Reporting Framework (WASMERF)?

● How can a reporting framework be designed to present web application security

metrics clearly, intuitively, and effectively in an actionable manner?

● How can the WASMERF framework be integrated with existing security testing tools

and methodologies to provide automated scanning capabilities and improve

efficiency?
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this particular section of the research study is to utilise the variety of
widespread literature this is available to be used from a wide source of authors this is
applicable to the topic of this research inquiry.

2.1 Overview of Web Application Security Metrics:

An overview of web application security metrics gives a high-level expertise of the key
principles and significance of measuring and assessing the security of web applications.
Here's an outline of the additives generally included in an overview of net application
security metrics:

● Define Research Questions

● Search for Relevant Literature

● Evaluate and Select Sources

● Review, Analyse & Report the Literature

2.2 Existing Frameworks and Approaches for Web Application Security

Measurement:

Existing frameworks and approaches to web application security measurement provide

structured methods and guidelines for assessing the security posture of web applications
Here is an overview of some commonly used frameworks and approaches:

● Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP)

● National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-53

● Web Application Security Consortium (WASC) Web Application Security Metrics

Project
 ● Microsoft Secure Development Lifecycle (SDL)

2.3 Analysis of Reporting Requirements Frameworks:

Analysis of reporting necessities frameworks entails evaluating existing frameworks and

guidelines that outline the vital factors and considerations for powerful reporting within the
context of web application protection. Here's an explanation of the key additives concerned
in reading reporting necessities frameworks:

● Review Existing Reporting Frameworks

● Identify Key Elements

● Reporting Format and Structure

● Compliance Requirements

● Integration with Other Reporting Efforts

● Continuous Improvement
 CHAPTER 3: NEED FOR WEB APPLICATION SECURITY

As the curtains rise on the design phase of web application development, a vital mandate
comes to the forefront: the incorporation of robust web application security. This pivotal
stage holds the potential to either fortify the digital landscape against looming threats or
inadvertently pave the way for vulnerabilities to breach the sanctity of data. The reasons
behind this meticulous attention to security during design are both strategic and practical,
encapsulating the very essence of a comprehensive and proactive approach.

Proactive Prevention, Not Remediation:

The design phase is akin to crafting the blueprint of a secure fortress before the foundation
is even laid. By embedding security considerations at this nascent stage, the aim is to thwart
potential vulnerabilities from ever taking root. It's a preemptive move that mitigates the
need for post-development fixes and patches—a costly and time-consuming endeavour.

Holistic Defence Strategy:

Designing with security in mind isn't just about safeguarding against known threats; it's
about anticipating the unknown. It's akin to erecting an impervious shield that deters not
only common attacks but also those that emerge as cyber threats evolve. This holistic
defence strategy ensures resilience against a dynamic threat landscape.

Optimal Utilization of Resources:

As the design phase unfolds, resources are allocated judiciously to shape the architecture
and functionality. Incorporating security principles here ensures that these resources are
employed efficiently to create a fortified application. This approach prevents the wasteful
allocation of time, effort, and financial resources towards rectifying security flaws in later
stages.

Data Fortresses Begin in Design:

The sanctity of user data and sensitive information lies at the heart of web application
security. By weaving security considerations into the design phase, the groundwork is laid for
constructing data fortresses. Encryption protocols, access controls, and authentication
mechanisms can be intricately woven into the architecture, forming an unbreachable cocoon
for data.

Usability and Security Synergy:

Designing for security isn't at odds with delivering a user-friendly experience. In fact, they
are complementary. A well-designed application that prioritizes security enhances user
confidence and trust. It assures users that their interactions are shielded, leading to
increased adoption and satisfaction.

In summary, the design phase isn't merely a blueprint; it's the first line of defense against
cyber threats. By embracing security as an integral part of this phase, organizations lay the
groundwork for an application that not only functions optimally but stands as a bastion
against vulnerabilities, ensuring a secure digital ecosystem for users and stakeholders alike.
 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

Methodology for developing web application security metrics and reporting frameworks
Includes a systematic approach to guide security metric selection, framework design and
development, data collection mechanism integration, and certification testing process Here
is an explanation of each step:

4.1 Web Application - Selection of security metrics:

This phase involves identifying and selecting the appropriate network and application
security metrics to be included in the framework. This requires a comprehensive
understanding of the organization’s goals, industry best practices, and the specific security
requirements of web applications. The selection process may include conducting a literature
review, consulting industry standards, and engaging with security experts to determine the
most relevant and effective metrics.

Unveiling the Metrics Mosaic:

Imagine a mosaic, where each tile represents a different facet of web application security.
This phase involves selecting these tiles—choosing metrics that mirror the complexities of
security. It's a meticulous process of cherry-picking the metrics that align with the security
goals of the organization, industry best practices, and the unique demands of web
applications.

The Tapestry of Understanding:

To select the right metrics, one must weave a tapestry of comprehension—a comprehensive
understanding of organizational aspirations. This involves aligning the chosen metrics with
the organization’s overarching goals. Are they aiming for robust authentication? Are they
concerned about data breaches? Each metric becomes a piece in this puzzle of security
aspirations.

In Step with Industry Best Practices:

Security doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's a domain shaped by industry norms and best
practices. In this phase, insights from industry standards become guiding stars. Consulting
benchmarks like OWASP Top 10, NIST guidelines, and others provides a compass—an
assurance that selected metrics resonate with global security paradigms.

Engaging with Expertise:

Security isn't just about numbers; it's about insight. In this journey, the wisdom of security
experts comes to the forefront. Engaging with professionals who possess a profound
understanding of the threat landscape and security intricacies becomes a source of
enlightenment. Their guidance helps distill the metrics that matter most.

Crafting Relevance and Effectiveness:

The selection process isn't arbitrary; it's about crafting relevance and effectiveness. Metrics
must not only be pertinent but also actionable. They must speak to vulnerabilities that
resonate with web applications, they must be indicators that drive strategic decisions, and
they must lead to impactful mitigation efforts.

The Ripple Effect:

The selection of security metrics isn't a static decision; it's a ripple that carries implications
throughout the framework. Each chosen metric shapes the subsequent phases—
aggregation, visualization, and reporting. It's a pivotal decision that sets the tone for the
entire journey of fortifying web applications.

4.2 Design and Development of the (WASMARF) Framework:

Once the metrics are selected, the next step is to design and develop the Web Application
Security Metrics and Reporting Framework (WASMARF). This framework has to define the
overall structure and architecture, including the components and modules needed to collect,
process, analyse and report data The design should consider factors such as scalability,
usability and integration with existing security infrastructure.

In this architectural journey, scalability is a guiding principle. The framework's design

anticipates the growth trajectory, ensuring that it doesn't just meet current demands but
also adapts to future expansions. Usability also finds its place at the heart of the design; user
interfaces are crafted for intuitive interaction, enabling security professionals to navigate the
framework effortlessly.

Integration isn't just a technical endeavor; it's a harmonization of security efforts.

WASMARF's architecture isn't an isolated entity; it forges bridges with existing security
infrastructure. This integration is a strategic choice—it's about ensuring that security isn't
siloed but rather integrated seamlessly into the fabric of operations.

Furthermore, the design and development phase isn't just a technical act—it's an
embodiment of foresight, precision, and a commitment to transforming data into actionable
insights. The architecture is more than lines of code; it's a digital sanctuary where security
metrics find their voice, illuminating the path towards enhanced web application security.

Blueprinting the Architecture:

Imagine a blueprint—a detailed architectural plan that orchestrates the elements of a

structure. Similarly, the design of WASMERF involves outlining the architecture with
meticulous precision. It's about defining the overall structure, the components, and the
modules that will orchestrate the flow of data—converting raw metrics into strategic
insights.

The Dance of Components:

A framework is more than its code; it's an ecosystem—a harmonious dance of components
and modules. This phase involves identifying the pieces that comprise this ecosystem. From
data collection mechanisms to processing modules and analytical engines, each component
is a building block that converges to create the holistic framework.

The Scalability Conundrum:

In a dynamic digital landscape, scalability isn't a luxury; it's a necessity. The design must be
cognizant of the framework's potential to expand. It's about architecting a structure that can
accommodate the influx of data and the evolving needs of security. Scalability isn't just a
technical attribute; it's a strategy for the future.
Harmonizing with Existing Infrastructure:

Security doesn't exist in isolation; it's a collaborative ecosystem. The design and
development of WASMERF must take into account the existing security infrastructure. It's
about creating a framework that can integrate, coexist, and synergize with the tools and
systems that organizations already employ.

4.3 Integration of Data Collection Mechanisms

In this phase, the framework is integrated with appropriate data collection mechanisms to
gather the information needed to generate safety metrics. This may include implementing
tools, agents or sensors that monitor and collect data related to web application security
parameters. The integration process should consider data privacy, reliability, and
compatibility of data sources with the chosen metrics.

4.3 Validation and Testing Procedures

Once the framework and data collection mechanisms are in place, validation testing
processes should be conducted to ensure the accuracy and effectiveness of the metrics and
the overall framework. This involves conducting tests and simulations to verify that the
metric accurately measures the intended security aspect. Validation also helps identify any
potential limitations or areas of improvement in the framework. Throughout the
methodology, it is important to follow established best practices in software development,
security testing, and data privacy. Documentation and version control should be established
to track changes and updates to the framework. Regular review and feedback from
stakeholders can help refine and enhance the framework over time. By following this
method, organizations can develop a robust and reliable web application security metric and
reporting framework that supports effective web application monitoring, evaluation and
reporting.

The Quest for Accuracy:

Validation isn't just a checkbox; it's a quest for accuracy. This phase involves subjecting the
metrics to tests and simulations—challenging their capacity to measure the intended
security aspects. It's about confirming that the metrics' reflections mirror reality—a
validation of precision and relevance.
A Symphony of Best Practices:

In this journey of validation and testing, a symphony of best practices plays a guiding tune.
Following established norms of software development, security testing, and data privacy
becomes paramount. It's about aligning with industry standards—a practice that instills
confidence in the framework's integrity.

Documentation:

In the world of frameworks, documentation is more than record-keeping; it's a chronicle of

evolution. This phase involves establishing documentation and version control—a record of
changes, updates, and enhancements. It's a narrative that captures the framework's
evolution over time—a narrative that illuminates the path of progress.

The Essence of Assurance:

Validation and testing aren’t just about affirming; it's about assuring. It's about instilling
confidence in the framework's reliability, about reinforcing the understanding that security
isn't a mere notion—it's a tangible commitment.
 CHAPTER 5: SECURITY METRICS

A security metrics is a structured and systematic approach for measuring, evaluating and
reporting various security vulnerabilities in a web application. Evaluating metrics related to
web application security holds utmost importance for the program's effectiveness. Metrics
contribute to enhancing security maturity by gauging advancements toward predetermined
maturity objectives. They also enable modifications to the security program to ensure the
successful attainment of these maturity goals.

There are 3 categories to be considered to establish a better security metrics.

 Age of Vulnerability
 New Vulnerabilities Introduced
 Average Time to Fix

5.1 Age of Vulnerabilities

It is the time period during which a software vulnerability exists and remains unpatched.
When a vulnerability is discovered in software there is a race against time for both the
software vendor to fix or patch and potential attackers to exploit.

According to statics Report from ptsecurity (, the share of web applications containing high-
severity vulnerabilities was 66 percent in 2020 and 62 percent in 2021, significantly more
than in 2019.

Figure 1: Vulnerability Age Metrics

Source: https://www.ptsecurity.com/ww-en/analytics/web-vulnerabilities-2020-2021/

Within the intricate realm of software security lies a concept that underscores the urgency
of response and the delicate balance between security and exploitation—the Age of
Vulnerabilities. It's the window of time from the moment a software vulnerability is
unearthed to the instance it's rectified, representing a race against the clock where
defenders strive to shield while adversaries aim to breach.

The Vulnerability Race:

Imagine a scenario where a chink in the armor of software is discovered. This moment marks
the inception of the Age of Vulnerabilities—a period of vulnerability and uncertainty. The
software vendor, akin to a vigilant guardian, must swiftly act to develop and release a patch,
closing the breach. In parallel, potential attackers seize the opportunity, unleashing a parallel
race of exploitation. It's a contest where seconds matter and outcomes are defined by the
swiftness of response.

Unveiling Stark Realities:

Statistics illuminate the gravity of the Age of Vulnerabilities. According to a report from
ptsecurity, the landscape of web applications bore the weight of high-severity vulnerabilities.
In the year 2020, a staggering 66 percent of web applications housed vulnerabilities of
significant impact. This figure only slightly diminished to 62 percent in 2021, still markedly
higher than the preceding year, 2019.

Interpreting the Numbers:

These numbers unravel a compelling narrative of the challenges posed by the Age of
Vulnerabilities. They underscore the persistently high prevalence of vulnerabilities within
web applications—a call to arms for enhanced security measures. The statistic not only
emphasizes the need for prompt vendor response but also draws attention to the relentless
persistence of attackers, ceaselessly seeking gaps to exploit.

A Glimpse into the Cyber Landscape:

The Age of Vulnerabilities casts a revealing spotlight on the cyber landscape's inherent
dynamics. It magnifies the interplay between those who guard against vulnerabilities and
those who seek to leverage them. It underscores the significance of rapid response and the
perpetual quest to fortify software's armor.

A Holistic Imperative:

In the grand tapestry of cybersecurity, the Age of Vulnerabilities is a chapter that

necessitates collective vigilance. It demands a proactive stance from software vendors to
minimize vulnerabilities swiftly. Simultaneously, it underscores the importance of users and
organizations staying informed and safeguarding their digital interactions.

In Closing: A Continuous Struggle:

The Age of Vulnerabilities serves as a reminder that the digital realm is in a constant state of
flux. It's a testament to the reality that security isn't a destination but a perpetual journey.
With each new discovery and subsequent patch, the cycle restarts—an ever-present
reminder that the battle against vulnerabilities is unending, making the Age of Vulnerabilities
a crucial facet in the story of software security.

5.2 New Vulnerabilities Introduced

The rapid rate of application development and frequent updates result in a surge of
vulnerabilities. While struggling to keep up with old vulnerabilities there are high chances in
the new release brings new and even more severe vulnerabilities within the web
applications.

A Multifaceted Reality:

With each new version, applications gain renewed vigor, enhanced functionalities, and
improved user experiences. However, in this progression, there exists an inherent challenge
—the potential introduction of new vulnerabilities.

Struggle Amid Progress:

The dichotomy becomes apparent—organizations grappling with the existing vulnerabilities

while embracing the forward momentum of innovation. This struggle is akin to a juggling act,
where maintaining equilibrium between security and advancement is paramount.

An Unintended Consequence:
While addressing old vulnerabilities, the introduction of new vulnerabilities might be
inadvertent. The intricate nature of code development and the complex interplay of features
can inadvertently pave the way for fresh security loopholes.

Amplified Severity:

What intensifies this challenge is the possibility of new vulnerabilities being even more
severe than their predecessors. The rapid pace of development can lead to oversight or
inadequate testing, inadvertently magnifying the impact of these vulnerabilities.

Navigating the Balance:

This landscape necessitates a meticulous approach—keeping a vigilant eye on existing

vulnerabilities while anticipating and pre-emptively addressing the emergence of new
weaknesses. The key is to create an environment where innovation thrives while security
remains an unwavering commitment.

A Holistic Approach: Striking this balance requires holistic security strategies. Incorporating
robust testing, continuous monitoring, and agile security practices can mitigate the risk of
introducing new vulnerabilities, ensuring a safer application environment.

5.3 Average Time to Fix

It is the average time that is required to fix an identified vulnerability. According to the
statistics reports from comparitech, it takes 58 days to fix a vulnerability, which is a longer
time and the hackers try different attack methods to exploit these vulnerability before a fix is
released.

In the intricate landscape of cybersecurity, the concept of the "Average Time to Fix" emerges
as a crucial metric—one that unravels the delicate dance between identifying vulnerabilities
and sealing them. This metric encapsulates the time span that stands between the unveiling
of a software vulnerability and the subsequent release of a fix. As the clock ticks, defenders
strive to safeguard while adversaries seek to capitalize—a scenario that underscores the
essence of proactive defence.

The Countdown to Resolution:

Imagine a scenario where the digital walls of software reveal a crack—an exposed
vulnerability. The Average Time to Fix starts ticking the moment this vulnerability is spotted.
It's a timeline that encapsulates the meticulous process of analysing, developing, and
implementing a solution. This metric offers insights into the efficiency of response—the
speed at which the digital guardians mend the breach.

Statistics Shedding Light:

Statistical insights from comparitech cast a revealing light on the Average Time to Fix
vulnerabilities. The data indicates an average of 58 days to address a vulnerability—a span
that bears significance in the world of cybersecurity. This window is a pivotal juncture where
potential adversaries endeavour to exploit the lag between detection and resolution.

The Dual Narrative:

This metric unfolds a dual narrative—one of challenge and opportunity. The 58-day window
is a battleground where two forces collide. On one side stand the defenders, striving to
engineer a robust fix that seals the breach. On the other side are the hackers, leveraging this
time gap to experiment with various attack methods, seeking a chink in the Armor to breach
defences.

Striking a Balance:

The Average Time to Fix isn't just about timelines; it's about equilibrium. It's a quest to
balance the urgency of rapid response with the precision of effective remediation. While
immediate fixes might prioritize speed, they mustn't compromise the integrity of the
solution. Conversely, a delayed fix provides hackers with an extended window—an outcome
to be averted.

The Tug-of-War Continues:

The tug-of-war between swift resolution and strategic remediation persists. Each passing day
within the Average Time to Fix is a dynamic interplay—a moment where the cybersecurity
landscape shifts. It's a reminder that the digital realm is in constant motion, with both
defenders and hackers orchestrating their moves in this ever-evolving chess game.

A Call for Agile Vigilance:

The Average Time to Fix is a call for agile vigilance—an invitation to expedite the resolution
without compromising quality. It's a spotlight on the imperative of collaboration between
software vendors, developers, and security professionals. In a world where vulnerabilities
are exploited within hours, this metric serves as a compass for rapid yet meticulous
response.

Based on the above considered, we have used below security frameworks to gather the
Weakness, Threats & Countermeasures to develop the WASMARF.

 OWASP (Open Web Application Security Project): The Open Web Application
Security Project (OWASP) stands as a vanguard in the realm of web application
security. With a global community of experts, it crafts resources, tools, and
knowledge that empower organizations to navigate and tackle the ever-evolving
landscape of cybersecurity. OWASP's mission encompasses not only awareness but
actionable guidance, striving to make security a cornerstone of every web
application's foundation.
 CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration): The Common Weakness Enumeration
(CWE) is a comprehensive catalogue that unveils vulnerabilities plaguing software
and systems. It's a structured language that enables security professionals to
communicate, identify, and understand software weaknesses. By providing a
standardized lexicon, CWE bridges the gap between developers, security teams, and
researchers, fostering a unified approach to fortify digital landscapes against
potential threats.
 NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) - SP 800-53: The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) holds a pivotal role in shaping
cybersecurity standards. Particularly, Special Publication 800-53 (SP 800-53) serves as
a cornerstone—a comprehensive catalog of security and privacy controls. This
framework equips organizations with a structured approach to managing risks,
fortifying systems, and safeguarding sensitive data. NIST SP 800-53 stands as a
guiding light, harmonizing security efforts across industries and reinforcing the
foundations of digital resilience.
 CIS (Centre for Internet Security) Critical Security Controls: The Centre for Internet
Security (CIS) Critical Security Controls represents a robust defence strategy in the
ever-evolving cyber landscape. This framework comprises a set of guidelines and best
practices designed to enhance cybersecurity posture. It empowers organizations to
prioritize and implement critical security measures, safeguarding against a spectrum
of threats. By adhering to CIS Critical Security Controls, organizations bolster their
resilience, ensuring a proactive stance in an environment where digital guardianship
is paramount.
 CHAPTER 6: SECURITY METRICS DATA GATHERING

When it comes to enhancing the security of web applications, a pivotal step is the collection
of security metrics data. This involves systematically gathering information that sheds light
on various aspects of security vulnerabilities and potential risks. The main goal is to build a
comprehensive picture of the security landscape and pinpoint areas that need attention and
enhancement.

Scope Definition: The process begins with defining the scope of data collection. This entails
determining the types of security metrics that are pertinent to your organization's goals.
Metrics can range from the number of detected vulnerabilities and their severity to
successful attack attempts and patch deployment rates.

Source of Insight: Our data gathering journey takes us to crowd-sourcing platforms that
house a wealth of security knowledge. Platforms like Bug crowd and Hacker One serve as
valuable reservoirs, providing real-world insights from ethical hackers and security experts.
Moreover, we tap into well-established resources like OWASP, CWE, and NIST, institutions
that offer industry-recognized guidelines and standards.

What We Gather: From these sources, we amass a treasure trove of information. We collect
insights into common weaknesses that plague applications and the countermeasures
devised to counteract these vulnerabilities. These insights come from real-world scenarios,
making them incredibly relevant and practical.

Analysing for Insights: But we don't stop at collection; analysis is key. We delve into the
collected data to categorize weaknesses based on their severity, assigning a rating from 1 to
10. This rating scale aids in identifying the most critical vulnerabilities that demand
immediate attention.

Prioritization Matters: Beyond severity, we evaluate each weakness's priority, again using a
scale from 1 to 10. This step helps in understanding where to allocate resources for
mitigation—ensuring that vulnerabilities with the highest potential impact are addressed
promptly.
Structured Categorization: As part of the analysis, we categorize weaknesses into distinct
categories, such as authentication, authorization, and more. This categorization provides
clarity, allowing us to tackle vulnerabilities methodically.

Phases of Impact: Moreover, we consider the phase at which these weaknesses manifest—
whether in the design, development, deployment, or other stages. This insight aids in
tailoring appropriate countermeasures depending on the phase.

Holistic Insights: The culmination of this data gathering and analysis is a holistic view of an
application's security posture. This comprehensive perspective equips organizations with the
knowledge needed to fortify their applications against potential threats.

In essence, security metrics data gathering isn't just about numbers; it's about capturing
real-world insights from diverse sources, structuring and analyzing them to prioritize actions,
and ultimately fostering a more secure digital environment. Below images illustrate the data
gathering process used for Security Metrics.

Figure 2: Security Metrics Information Gathering

 CHAPTER 7: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF WASMARF
FRAMEWORK

Developing the "Web Application Security Metrics and Reporting Framework" (WASMERF)
involves a step-by-step process to create an efficient system for gathering and presenting
security metrics related to web applications. Let's go through the key steps in designing and
building this framework:

7.1 Architecture and Components of the Framework:

When it comes to crafting the core of the WASMERF framework, there are two pivotal
aspects that deserve our attention: the architecture and the components that weave it all
together. These foundational elements serve as the guiding structure and building blocks
that shape the framework's functionality and purpose.

Architecture: Think of the architecture as the master plan that dictates how every part
collaborates. It maps out how these components communicate and cooperate, creating a
seamless flow of actions. It's like designing the framework's backbone, focusing on how data
moves, systems interact, and the overall framework takes shape.

Components: Within this architecture, components are like the specialized workers, each
with its own unique role. They're the engine of the framework, responsible for specific tasks.
These tasks could include collecting data, transforming it into useful insights, presenting
information to users, ensuring security, and more.

In essence, the architecture and components form a symphony where each part plays its
role, creating a seamless flow of security metrics. This meticulous design ensures that the
framework is flexible, adaptable, and well-organized, ensuring it can grow and evolve as
security needs change over time.

This phase demands thoughtful planning. The architecture's strength lies in its ability to
accommodate future changes and developments, making sure the framework remains
effective and pertinent. Similarly, the components are carefully crafted to interact smoothly,
enhancing the overall user experience of the WASMERF framework.

As this architecture and its components take shape, they encapsulate the very essence of
the framework's purpose and potential. It's this thoughtful arrangement that breathes life
into the framework, transforming it from a concept into a practical solution that empowers
organizations to fortify their web application security through comprehensive metrics and
insightful reporting.

The framework contains below 4 major components:

Security Metrices Data: Security metrics data involves specifying the types of information
we'll gather to evaluate web application security. We focus on common weaknesses and
their countermeasures from sources like Bug crowd, Hacker One, and established bodies like
OWASP and NIST. We measure severity (1 to 10) and prioritize (1 to 10) each weakness,
helping us allocate resources effectively. Organizing weaknesses by category (e.g.,
authentication) and phase (design, development) adds structure. This process enables us to
gain actionable insights and enhance web application security.

Quantifying the gravity of weaknesses on a severity scale of 1 to 10, and prioritizing them
from 1 to 10, empowers us to make informed choices. We allocate resources efficiently,
addressing vulnerabilities based on their impact and urgency. Further, organizing these
weaknesses into categories and phases injects a structured approach. It's akin to segmenting
a puzzle, where each piece has its place, forming a coherent picture of potential threats.

Ultimately, our quest for security metrics data isn't just about accumulation; it's about
harnessing insights for concrete action. Armed with this knowledge, we evolve from reacting
to vulnerabilities to proactively fortifying our web applications—preventing threats before
they manifest and elevating security to an ongoing commitment.

UI Interface: Nestled within the core of the WASMARF framework is a dynamic front-end
interface, thoughtfully crafted with Angular technology. This interface acts as the doorway,
allowing security architects to seamlessly interact with the underlying backend service. Let's
explore this essential component in greater detail:

 Tailored for User Needs: The front-end interface is carefully designed to cater to the
needs of the users – the security architects. Its layout, features, and interactions are
all geared towards providing a comfortable and intuitive experience.
 Harnessing Angular Technology: Powered by Angular, this interface boasts the
advantage of being both responsive and high-performing. It offers a fluid navigation
 experience, quick updates, and seamless interactions, all of which elevate the user's
journey.
 Bridge to the Backend: Functioning as a bridge, the front-end interface establishes a
crucial connection between security architects and the backend service. It initiates
API calls to the backend, ensuring a seamless flow of information and data. This real-
time connection facilitates the submission and retrieval of security metrics data.
 Effortless Data Input: Through this interface, security architects can effortlessly input
the necessary security metrics data. Details regarding vulnerabilities,
countermeasures, severity, priority, and more can be effortlessly entered. The
interface efficiently transmits this information to the backend for processing.

Back-End Service: At the core of the WASMARF framework stands the back-end service, an
instrumental force that drives the entire system. Designed and developed using .NET 7, this
service shoulders the responsibilities of data management, logic implementation, and
orchestrating key operations. Here's a closer look at this foundational component:

 Data Management Hub: The back-end service serves as the central hub for all data-
related tasks. It handles the intricate process of inserting, retrieving, updating, and
deleting data in the database. This seamless data flow empowers the framework
with accurate and up-to-date information.
 Mastering Logic: The intricate logic governing common weaknesses,
countermeasures, risk ratings, and priorities finds its home within the back-end
service. This critical logic ensures that the collected metrics data is accurately
categorized, assessed, and interpreted, forming the backbone of informed decision-
making.
 Mapping Mastery: Mapping the relationships between various elements, such as
weaknesses and countermeasures, is a complex task. The back-end service adeptly
manages this process, ensuring that each piece of data is aligned with its relevant
counterpart, enriching the context of the metrics data.
 Risk Ratings and Priorities: The all-important risk ratings and priorities, crucial for
evaluating the impact of weaknesses, are skillfully managed by the back-end service.
It calculates and assigns these ratings, enabling a clear understanding of the potential
threats.
  .NET 7 Power: Developed using .NET 7 technology, the back-end service embodies
performance, efficiency, and reliability. It facilitates smooth interactions with the
front-end interface, providing a cohesive platform for seamless user experiences.
 Foundation of Functionality: In essence, the back-end service forms the very
foundation upon which the WASMARF framework is built. It takes charge of intricate
data processes, implements critical logic, and ensures that the metrics data is not
just stored, but utilized for informed decisions and heightened security.

As security architects input data, this service steps in to manage it, applying the logic,
calculations, and categorizations that drive the metrics analysis. Ultimately, it is this back-
end service that transforms data into insights, fortifying web application security in the
process.

Database: Within the architecture of the WASMARF framework resides a digital haven
known as the database component. It's not just a place to store data; it's where the very
essence of project-related information is nurtured. Powered by the reliability of Microsoft
SQL Server, this component is like the engine room of the framework. Let's take a closer
look:

 Gathering of Knowledge: The database serves as a central repository, meticulously

storing all aspects of project-related data. It houses not just raw information but a
treasure trove of insights, vulnerabilities, countermeasures, and their intricate
connections.
 Dependability of SQL Server: With the strong foundation of Microsoft SQL Server,
the database becomes a bastion of data security, unwavering reliability, and
adaptable scalability. It's a safe sanctuary that ensures data is not just stored but also
accessible for the framework's needs.
 Harmonizing with Framework: The presence of Entity Framework elevates this
component's stature. It acts as a bridge, connecting the database seamlessly with the
rest of the framework. This harmony simplifies interactions and facilitates smooth
data manipulation.
 Safeguarding through Strategy: What sets this database apart is its proactive stance
against raw queries. It embraces a secure approach to data manipulation, minimizing
vulnerabilities and ensuring that each transaction is a fortress of protection.
  Unveiling Complexities: Beyond mere data storage, the database takes on the
challenge of mapping weaknesses to countermeasures. It's a master of untangling
intricacies, solidifying connections and breathing life into the metrics data.
 Fuelling Informed Insights: In the grand scheme, this database component isn't a
passive entity; it's an active catalyst. It transforms raw data into insights that
empower security architects with the knowledge to make well-informed, strategic
decisions.

In essence, the database component isn't just a storage space; it's a vibrant core that powers
the entire WASMARF framework. It safeguards, enriches, and translates data into a precious
resource that fortifies the realm of web application security.

Below image illustrate the diagram for the architecture of reporting platform.

Figure 3: WASMARF Architecture

7.2 Data aggregation and processing:

In the realm of the WASMARF framework, data aggregation and processing emerge as the
architects of order in the midst of data chaos. Let's delve into what these key elements
entail:
Data Aggregation: The Art of Unification:

Imagine data as scattered pieces of a grand puzzle. Data aggregation is the patient hand that
gathers these scattered fragments, arranging them into a harmonious whole. It's about
collating information from diverse sources, like Bug crowd, Hacker One, and esteemed
references like OWASP and CWE.

This process is essential because it creates a collective pool of data, encapsulating a broad
spectrum of vulnerabilities, countermeasures, and insights. By consolidating this data, a
comprehensive view of the security landscape is achieved, providing a foundation for robust
analysis.

Data Processing: Refining the Raw Data:

Raw data, akin to uncut gemstones, holds potential but requires refining to unveil its
brilliance. Data processing is the craft that takes these raw bits and polishes them into
valuable insights. It involves cleaning, structuring, and transforming the data into a format
that can be analysed effectively.

Processing ensures that data is in a coherent form, ready for analysis. Techniques like data
normalization and transformation are employed to create a uniform structure that facilitates
pattern recognition, trend identification, and meaningful interpretation. This step is crucial
as it transforms raw data into a resource that can guide informed decisions and actionable
strategies.

In essence, data aggregation and processing are the tandem forces that transform scattered
information into a structured narrative. They prepare the groundwork for informed insights
and effective decision-making within the realm of web application security.

7.3 User interface design for reporting and analysis:

Within the WASMARF framework, the user interface (UI) designed for reporting and analysis
emerges as a window to a world of insights. This carefully crafted UI serves as a digital
canvas that security architects and professionals can navigate effortlessly to gain a deeper
understanding of security metrics data. Let's delve into its significance:

 Designing for Clarity: The UI isn't just about aesthetics; it's designed to be a beacon
of clarity. Every element, from colours to typography, is chosen thoughtfully to
 ensure that the user experience is intuitive and smooth. This design philosophy aids
users in easily comprehending complex metrics data.
 Navigational Ease: Imagine the UI as a guide that leads security architects through a
maze of information. Navigational elements are strategically placed, ensuring users
can seamlessly explore different sections, filter data, and toggle between insights
effortlessly.
 Reporting with Impact: The UI isn't just a canvas—it's a storyteller. It transforms raw
data into visual narratives through interactive charts, graphs, and diagrams. These
visual aids make the data not only comprehensible but also memorable, empowering
users to discern patterns and trends.

Customization and Flexibility: Recognizing that each user's needs are unique, the UI offers
customization options. Users can tailor their experience, selecting specific metrics to
analyse, adjusting visualizations, and even exporting reports that align with their objectives.

In essence, the UI designed for reporting and analysis is a gateway to uncovering hidden
dimensions within security metrics data. It's a bridge that connects users with actionable
insights, transforming complex information into strategic wisdom. This human-centric design
enriches the framework's purpose—to fortify web application security through informed
decisions.

Figure 4: WASMARF: Dashboard

 Figure 5: WASMARF: Profiles

Figure 6: WASMARF: Built-in Components

Figure 7: WASMARF: Built-in Weakness

Figure 8: WASMARF: Built-in Weakness

Figure 9: WASMARF: Built-in Categories

Figure 10:WASMARF: Built-in Phases

 Figure 11:WASMARF: Built-in Classifications

Figure 12:WASMARF: Built-in Risk Policies

The project module is where we create new project and add the components that are used
in the projects.

The library module contains various components and are explained as:

Profiles: "Incorporating various platform profiles (.NET, Android, Java, etc.), the library acts
as a template repository, aligning weaknesses to their respective profiles for comprehensive
security assessment."

Components: In this strategic approach, a variety of components, including Amazon S3,

microservices, MSSQL, and more, have their weaknesses intricately identified and linked.
This meticulous mapping fosters a comprehensive understanding of security vulnerabilities
unique to each component, ensuring a resilient and well-informed security approach across
the digital landscape.

Weakness: The process extends to mapping specific vulnerabilities or weaknesses, which

have been meticulously collected through the security metrics phase. These vulnerabilities
encompass a range of security concerns, such as authentication flaws, code injection risks,
and more, providing a granular insight into potential points of vulnerability across the digital
infrastructure. By aligning these weaknesses with the respective components and profiles, a
comprehensive security framework is crafted, ready to address and mitigate potential risks
across the spectrum.

Countermeasures: Equally vital in this comprehensive approach is the alignment of

countermeasures with identified weaknesses. These countermeasures are derived from
industry best practices, guidelines from OWASP, NIST, and security experts' insights. They
serve as the strategic responses to each weakness, aimed at fortifying the digital ecosystem
against potential threats. By meticulously connecting countermeasures to their
corresponding weaknesses within specific profiles and components, the framework takes
shape as a robust strategy poised to safeguard against vulnerabilities and enhance overall
security posture.

Categories: The framework extends to categorizing security concerns into distinct categories,
encompassing critical areas such as authentication, authorization, cryptography, data
validation, file handling, logging, monitoring, and error handling. These categories act as
organizational pillars, ensuring a systematic approach to addressing vulnerabilities. Each
category encapsulates specific weaknesses and countermeasures, providing a
comprehensive overview of potential risks within these vital domains. By aligning
weaknesses, countermeasures, and corresponding components/profiles within these
categories, the framework gains a structured foundation to navigate the intricate landscape
of web application security.

 Authentication: Authentication is the process of verifying the identity of a user,

system, or entity to ensure that they are who they claim to be before granting access
to resources or information. It typically involves the use of passwords, biometrics,
tokens, or other factors to establish trust and prevent unauthorized access.
 Authorization: Authorization refers to the process of determining what actions,
resources, or data an authenticated user or entity is allowed to access or manipulate
within a system or network, ensuring proper permissions and security controls are
enforced.
 Cryptography: Cryptography involves the use of mathematical techniques to secure
communication and data by converting information into unreadable formats
(ciphertext) that can only be deciphered by those with the appropriate decryption
keys, thereby ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of the information.
 Data Validation: Data validation is the process of verifying and ensuring the accuracy,
integrity, and reliability of input data before it's accepted and processed within a
system or application. This helps prevent errors, inconsistencies, and security
vulnerabilities caused by malicious or faulty data.
 File Handling: File handling refers to the management and manipulation of data
stored in files on a computer system. It involves tasks such as creating, reading,
writing, updating, and deleting files, as well as organizing and controlling access to
the stored data. Proper file handling practices are crucial for data integrity, security,
and efficient storage.
 Logging, Monitoring, and Error Handling: Logging involves the recording of events,
activities, and system actions in a structured format for future reference and analysis.
Monitoring is the real-time observation and analysis of system activities to ensure
proper functioning and detect anomalies. Error handling is the systematic process of
identifying, managing, and resolving unexpected errors or exceptions that may arise
during software execution, helping maintain system stability and security.
 Session Management: Session management refers to the process of securely
handling and maintaining user sessions during their interactions with web
applications or systems. It involves tasks such as session creation upon user login,
tracking session state, ensuring session expiration, and protecting against session
hijacking or fixation attacks. Effective session management is crucial for maintaining
user privacy, data integrity, and preventing unauthorized access.
 Security Misconfiguration: Security misconfiguration refers to the improper
configuration of software, systems, or applications that can lead to vulnerabilities
and potential security breaches. This can happen due to default settings,
 unnecessary features, lack of updates, weak access controls, or inadequate error
handling.

Phases: The framework adopts a structured sequence of phases—Activities, Requirements,

Architecture & Design, Development, Deployment, and Testing. Each phase encompasses
specific actions and strategies, culminating in a cohesive security framework ready to
address vulnerabilities across the web application lifecycle.

 Activities: Activities represent countermeasures derived from process-based controls

that serve as guiding principles for security teams engaged in day-to-day security
operations.
 Requirements: Application security requirements serve as valuable guidance for
requirements analysts, aiding them in shaping secure software development goals.
 Architecture & Design: Offering design counsel for crafting secure applications, these
recommendations are intended to assist architects and lead developers in
architecting robust software.
 Development: Secure development countermeasures are directed towards
developers, equipping them with strategies to infuse security into the development
process.
 Deployment: Secure deployment countermeasures extend support to DevOps
professionals, ensuring secure deployment practices during the application's
operationalization.
 Testing: Providing meticulous testing instructions for identifying security
vulnerabilities, these guidelines cater to software Quality Assurance (QA) testers,
ensuring rigorous examination of potential weak points.

Classifications: Within the framework, a hierarchical classification system is embraced,

categorizing project importance:

 Critical: Denoting projects of utmost organizational significance.

 High: Reflecting projects of elevated importance.
 Medium: Identifying projects of moderate importance.
 Low: Representing projects of lesser significance.
 Very Low: Reserved for projects of minimal organizational importance.
Risk Policies: The framework integrates strategic risk policies to guide decision-making:

 Highest Risk Policy: Tailored for high-risk applications. It mandates the completion of
all tasks across phases and priorities for project compliance, demanding
comprehensive risk mitigation. (Threshold: 1 or higher)
 On-Boarding Policy: Geared towards application introduction. Prioritizing pivotal
tasks, it streamlines the on-boarding process by focusing on critical elements.
(Threshold: 7 or higher)

Above mentioned modules can be customized based on the requirements and the policies.
 CHAPTER 8: FEED SECURITY METRICS DATA TO
REPORTING PLATFORM

In the dynamic landscape of the WASMARF framework, the process of feeding security
metrics data to the reporting platform emerges as a pivotal conduit of knowledge. This
process acts as a bridge that seamlessly transfers the wealth of collected metrics data to a
space where it can be harnessed for informed decision-making. Let's explore this process in
more detail:

8.1 Feeding Common Weakness & Countermeasure Data:

A user-friendly interface takes centre stage in the process of incorporating common

weakness & countermeasure data. This interface serves as a gateway where both users and
security architects can directly input weakness & countermeasure details into the
framework. The design of this interface prioritizes convenience, ensuring that adding,
editing, or even removing weaknesses becomes a fluid and intuitive process.

To start with it is recommended to start adding the weakness by following:

STEP 1: Navigate to Library -> Weakness -> Create Weakness

STEP 2: Fill the details about the weakness and click on Create button

Figure 13: Create Weakness

Now, the weakness is added to the platform, it is now to add the countermeasure by
following:

STEP 1: Navigate to Library -> Countermeasures -> Create Countermeasures

STEP 2: Select the weakness first followed by completing the countermeasure form

Figure 14: Create Countermeasure

8.2 Mapping Weakness with Profiles

Mapping of Weakness with profiles allows developers to easily identify the weakness in the
particular profiles.

Start profile weakness mapping by following:

STEP 1: Navigate to Library -> Profile – Create a Profile

STEP 2: Add the new profile name and details to create

 Figure 15: Create Profile

STEP 3: Open the created profile and click on Weakness

Figure 16:Profile View

STEP 4: Select the weakness and click on Import

 Figure 17: Import Weakness to Profiles

8.3 Mapping Weakness with Components

Mapping of Weakness with Components allows developers to easily identify the weakness in
the particular components.

Start profile weakness mapping by following:

STEP 1: Navigate to Library -> Components – Create a Component

STEP 2: Complete the Component form and click to create

Figure 18: Create Component

STEP 3: Open the created component

 Figure 19: Component Details

STEP 4: Click on Import Weakness and select the relevant weakness to map the weakness

Figure 20: Import weakness to component

 CHAPTER 9: VALIDATION & TESTING

As the WASMARF framework takes shape, a crucial phase emerges: validation and testing.
This stage is like a litmus test for the framework's readiness to tackle real-world challenges.
Let's delve into what this process entails:

Validation Unveiled: Validation is the process of confirming that the framework aligns with
its intended purpose. It's the assurance that each component, from data entry to analysis,
functions harmoniously to achieve its objectives. Think of it as a meticulous check to ensure
the framework does what it's designed to do.

User-Centric Focus: Validation and testing not only involve technical scrutiny but also put
the user at the forefront. It ensures that the user interface is intuitive, the reporting platform
provides valuable insights, and data integrity is upheld.

Data Integrity Verification: Beyond functionality, validation delves into the integrity of the
data processed. It confirms that the metrics data is accurately categorized, assessed, and
interpreted, serving as a foundation for dependable insights.

Continuous Improvement: Validation and testing aren't one-time affairs. It's an iterative
process that uncovers areas for enhancement. Any shortcomings or discrepancies detected
are addressed, refining the framework's performance and reliability.

Real-World Simulation: The validation process often involves deploying the framework in a
controlled environment, replicating real-world conditions. This simulation challenges the
framework to prove its mettle against diverse security incidents and vulnerabilities.

The following example illustrates the real time analysis on a new application development
project.

STEP 1: Create a project by navigating to Projects -> Create Project

 Figure 21:Create Project

STEP 2: Fill the project details and select appropriate policy name and profile to create
project

Figure 22:Project Details

STEP 3: Once the project is created open the project by click on project name in project list
 Figure 23: Project Dashboard

STEP 4: Click on Components

Figure 24: Project Components

STEP 5: Click on Import Component to import the list of components used by the application
 Figure 25: Import Project Components

Figure 26: Imported Components

STEP 6: Click on Weakness, to see the list of weakness in the components

 Figure 27: Component Weakness

STEP 7: Click on weakness to view the weakness details and relevant countermeasures

Figure 28: Weakness Countermeasure

STEP 8: Click on Overview to view the project dashboard

STEP 9: Click on Report button to generate a report

Figure 29: Generated Report

 CHAPTER 10: APPLICATION DEPLOYMENT

With the development journey of the Web Application Security Metrics and Reporting
Framework (WASMARF) reaching its zenith, a crucial phase emerges—deployment. The
culmination of meticulous planning, design, and development converges into the moment
where WASMARF steps out of the realm of concept and into the digital arena. Let's delve
into the intricacies of this deployment, where the synergy of innovation and technology
finds its manifestation.

Transition to Operational Eminence:

As the WASMARF application steps onto the deployment stage, it metamorphoses from
code to operational eminence. Every keystroke, every design choice, and every security
consideration now amalgamate to serve the purpose it was crafted for.

IIS: The Digital Stage:

Internet Information Services (IIS) serves as the digital stage on which WASMARF's
capabilities unfold. This platform facilitates the application's interaction with users,
transforming intricate processes into user-friendly interfaces.

Configuration and Optimization:

The transition goes beyond mere deployment; it's about optimal performance. Configuration
adjustments ensure that WASMARF operates at its best, delivering a fluid experience to
users and administrators alike.

Security Envelope:

Deployment is a realm where security must shine. The fortification of WASMARF on IIS
involves a meticulous weaving of security measures, ensuring its resilience against potential
digital threats.

User-Centric Experience:
Beyond deployment, WASMARF is about engagement. Its interface, forged through design
and development, takes center stage, offering users a friendly, accessible, and informative
experience.

Beyond Deployment: A Continuous Journey:

Deployment isn't an endpoint; it's a new beginning. Regular maintenance, updates, and
vigilance form an ongoing commitment—a journey that ensures WASMARF's longevity and
effectiveness.
 CHAPTER 11: CONCULSION

In the intricate realm of web application security, where the landscape is marked by both
innovation and vulnerability, our thesis embarked on a journey aimed at fortifying this
critical facet of the digital realm. With the culmination of our efforts, we present the Web
Application Security Metrics and Reporting Framework (WASMARF) — a profound solution
designed to elevate the effectiveness of web application security metrics and reporting
methodologies.

Throughout this exploration, we traversed a multifaceted landscape, addressing the

significance of security metrics as the cornerstone of informed decision-making. The
framework's architecture and components were meticulously designed, incorporating
advanced data aggregation, processing, and visualization techniques. The user interface
emerged as an intuitive gateway, enabling security architects to effortlessly engage with
intricate metrics data.

By embracing a meticulous process of data gathering, mapping, and analysis, WASMARF

transforms raw data into actionable insights. Our validation and testing phase rigorously
examined the framework's readiness, ensuring that it stands resilient against real-world
security challenges.

In summation, WASMARF transcends its technical underpinnings; it represents a

collaborative effort to enhance web application security. As we conclude this journey, we
recognize that the landscape of digital security remains dynamic, yet our contribution in the
form of WASMARF stands as a beacon of knowledge, innovation, and proactive defense. This
framework equips security professionals with a robust toolset to navigate the ever-evolving
digital frontier, fostering a safer digital environment for all.
 CHAPTER 12: REFERENCES

[1] A. Jaquith, "Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt," Addison-Wesley
Professional, 2007.

[2] Matteo Meucci and Andrew Muller, “OWASP- Open Web Application Security Projects”,
[Version 4.2], 2020.

Reference: https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/assets/archive/
OWASP_Testing_Guide_v4.pdf

[3] Murugiah Souppaya, Karen Scarfone and Donna Dodson, “Secure Software Development
Framework (SSDF)”, [Version 1.1], 2022.

Reference: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/specialpublications/nist.sp.800-218.pdf

[4] CWE, “Common Weakness Enumeration (C.W.E)”, [Version 4.8], 2022.

Reference: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/published/cwe_v4.8.pdf

[5] Mark Curphey, Joel Scambray, and Erik Olson, “Improving Web Application Security:
Threats and Countermeasures”, [Version 1.0], 2003.

Reference: https://download.microsoft.com/download/d/8/c/d8c02f31-64af-438c-a9f4-
e31acb8e3333/Threats_Countermeasures.pdf

[6] Bug Crowd, “A crowdsourced security platform”, 2011.

Reference: https://www.bugcrowd.com/

[7] Mike Shema, “Seven Deadliest Web Application Attacks”, [Version 1.0], 2010.

Reference: https://www.hackerone.com/

[8] Anthony, Albert, “AWS: Security Best Practices on AWS”, [Version 1.0], 2018.

[9] Mustafa Toroman and Tom Janetscheck, “Mastering Azure Security”, 2022.
[10] Yuri Diogenes, Debra Shinder, and Tom Shinder, “Microsoft Azure Security
Infrastructure”, 2016.

[11] Lance Hayden, “IT Security Metrics: A Practical Framework for Measuring Security &
Protecting Data”, 2010.

[12] Gerald L. Kovacich, Edward Halibozek, “Security Metrics Management: Measuring the
Effectiveness and Efficiency of a Security Program”, 2016.