Close Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Subscribe
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
Home - Study & Research - High-Tech Bridge Releases Application Security Trends Results
Study & Research

High-Tech Bridge Releases Application Security Trends Results

ISBuzz TeamBy ISBuzz TeamJune 8, 2017Updated:July 4, 20246 Mins Read
Share LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Copy Link Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link
Quick AI Summary
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiGrokPerplexityDeepSeekCopilot

Meet High-Tech Bridge’s application security experts on stand S-48 at Infosecurity Europe

The latest trends and insights on mobile and IoT security, DevSecOps, Bug Bounties, OWASP Top Ten and encryption.

At Infosecurity Europe 2017, High-Tech Bridge, a leading provider of web and mobile application security testing services and a “Gartner Cool Vendor 2017”, released a summary report on application security trends for Q1 – Q2 2017.

Statistical data mentioned in the report largely comes from the ImmuniWeb® Application Security Testing Platform and High-Tech Bridge’s free web security services, but also leverages a wealth of data from various open sources. The most interesting or important trends High-Tech Bridge is highlighting include:

 Bug Bounty fatigue trend is one that will continue

The term “Bug Bounty fatigue” was initially introduced by High-Tech Bridge a year ago at Infosecurity Europe 2016 and this trend is set to progress: 9/10 web applications in the scope of a private or public bug bounty program, running for a year or longer, contained at least two high-risk vulnerabilities undetected by the crowd security testing.

Such vulnerabilities usually require a thorough understanding of web application structure, architecture and business logic. Security researchers from crowd security testing platforms are paid by result and only if they report their discovery before others. Unsurprisingly, the researchers adapt their testing targets and methodologies, giving preference to newcomers who have just launched a bounty program, looking for the flaws that do not require a lot of time to detect.

A recent partnership of Qualys and BugCrowd will likely reduce such “easy-cash bounties”, motivating many researchers to get a risk-free full time job in the industry. Google’s Project Zero Prize, ended without a single valid submission, is a good example that no researchers are motivated to spend endless nights on complicated vulnerabilities and exploitation techniques, without a solid assurance of payment.

Mobile backends are the Achilles heel of the corporate defense perimeter

83% of mobile apps within banking, financial and retail sectors have a mobile backend (web services and APIs) that is vulnerable to at least one high-risk security vulnerability. Most popular vulnerabilities are insufficient, or missing, authorization when accessing sensitive data or data belonging to other users.

Various injections, mainly represented by SQL and XML injections, are also quite common, aggravated by a frequently missing WAF on the mobile backend.

 Risks related to mobile applications are highly exaggerated

Over 95% of vulnerabilities residing in mobile application code are not easily exploitable and do not pose a major risk. The most popular flaw in mobile applications within banking, financial and retail sectors is insecure, or cleartext storage of sensitive or authentication data on a mobile device.

The second most popular flaw consists of insecure, or otherwise unreliable, components used in the application code putting mobile phone privacy at risk. The third is insecure communication with a mobile backend (APIs and Web Services), allowing to intercept sensitive data or to conduct MITM attacks.

All of these vulnerabilities usually require another malicious application already installed on a device, and/or an attacker in the same network segment as the victim, and thus are hardly exploitable in the wild.

Web interfaces of IoT devices represent an enormous risk

98% of web interfaces and administrative panels of various IoT devices had fundamental security problems. Among them: hardcoded and unmodifiable admin credentials, outdated software (e.g. web server) without any means to update it “from the box”, lack of HTTP traffic encryption, various critical vulnerabilities in the interface, including RCE (Remote Command Execution) in the login interface directly.

Manufacturers who build IoT objects still do not understand that cybersecurity of their products becomes even more vital than manufacturing quality standards, and puts their customers at enormous risk.

DevSecOps cannot protect from human negligence

2/3 companies that leverage a DevSecOps approach to application development, had at least one high or critical risk vulnerability in their external web applications due to lack of internal coordination, human negligence or a business reason. For example, a highly secure web application can be located on a domain with a file upload form, or a recent database backup, in a predictable location.

This is especially valid for agile development, when many different people from different locations make changes simultaneously to application code. The bigger the organization is, the more complicated is to prevent such incidents, as numerous data and process owners change their decisions and requirements much faster than IT has time to properly adopt them, following internal processes.

 XSS, CSRF and information disclosure are still the most popular vulnerabilities

Globally, these three OWASP Top Ten vulnerabilities may easily pass the 80% bar. However, in banking, financial, insurance and e-commerce sectors, they represent just 50.9% of flaws.

Thorough and mature security testing, greater security awareness, compliance and regulatory requirements in these industries can probably explain this disparity.

OWASP Top Ten becomes harder to detect

Despite the overwhelming popularity, 53% of simple flaws from OWASP Top Ten, such as XSS, are no longer detectable by vulnerability scanners and other fully automated solutions.

Such vulnerabilities more and more frequently require a complicated chain of exploitation that is only performable by a human. For example, many [at a first glace] simple XSS flaws require a valid client ID or Google’s reCAPTCHA, or is only reproducible with a long set of other valid HTTP parameters. Moreover, complicated authentication systems (e.g. using 2FA and session expiration in case of abnormal behavior) preclude vulnerability scanners from testing the authenticated part of the applications.

Therefore, full automation in vulnerability detection for modern web applications becomes highly challenging.

Web server security hardening is massively ignored

Statistics from High-Tech Bridge’s free online Web Server Security test show that a Content Security Policy (CSP), various security-related HTTP headers and other options of web server security hardening are currently fully implemented only on 2.4% of global web servers.

Even though almost all social networks have implemented the above-mentioned measures, there is low overall awareness that many vectors of XSS and CSRF attacks can be effectively mitigated on a web server.

WAFs mitigate simple OWASP Top Ten flaws, but fail to protect from sophisticated flaws

Only 22% of SQL injections in web applications protected by a commercial WAF were fully exploitable (i.e. allowing to extract sensitive data from the database). However, 58% of these vulnerabilities were partially exploitable (e.g. show SQL server version or user) using different WAF bypass techniques.

Meanwhile, in 88.7% of cases, various types of complicated improper access control, chained vulnerabilities and flawed application business logic were not detected, and thus remained unremediated by WAFs.

Growth of HTTPS encryption reliability is stagnating

In June 2017, High-Tech Bridge’s free SSL/TLS server test has reached over 2.2 million unique tests (not counting API usage, repetitive tests and subdomain analysis). 64.4% of all tested web servers received an “A” grade and 47.5% have TLS configuration that is compliant with PCI DSS requirements.

However, this represents just a 0.2% and 0.1% growth respectively in the last six months. The top countries hosting web servers with the most secure HTTPS configuration are still the USA, Germany, France, Netherlands and UK.

[su_box title=”About High-Tech Bridge” style=”noise” box_color=”#336588″][short_info id=’60245′ desc=”true” all=”false”][/su_box]

ISBuzz Team
  • ISBuzz Team
    Air Canada Data Breach: BianLian Extortion Group Claims A Massive Heist Contrary To Airline’s Earlier Statement
  • ISBuzz Team
    Unprecedented DDoS Attack Rocks The Web: Tech Giants Reveal A Digital Tsunami
  • ISBuzz Team
    CISA Flags High-Severity Adobe Acrobat Reader Flaw Amid Active Exploits
  • ISBuzz Team
    Curl Security Alert: Patching A Critical Bug Averting Potential Cyber Catastrophe

The opinions expressed in this post belong to the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Security Buzz.

Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link

Related Posts

Visual data is the blind spot in enterprise security: that’s about to change

May 4, 20267 Mins Read

AppSec is dead, long live AI security

April 29, 20265 Mins Read

Making stolen data worthless: why security must start with the data

March 30, 20265 Mins Read
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar

No se ha podido establecer conexión. Error 429

 
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar
Black ISB Logo

Information Security Buzz is an independent resource that provides the experts’ comments, analysis, and opinion on the latest Cybersecurity news and topics

X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook RSS

Working With Us

  • About Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Write For Us

  • How To Contribute

The Pages

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • AI Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Copyright Notice

Information Security Buzz and all its contents are copyright © 2014-2025. All rights reserved. All third-party trademarks are recognized.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}