02-09-2012 11:20 AM - edited 02-09-2012 11:30 AM
Please refer attached! Every time you review a vulnerability & come back the page reloads making the scroll to go to top. As a result its difficult to know on which vulnerability you were as all records look identical...
One way is to select the check box. But if I leave some of the checkbox unchecked then again I may get lost in my analysis... So does it make sense to add a column with increamental id...
Thanks & stay secure,
02-10-2012 06:55 AM
Yes, that is a good enhancement request that I will submit for you.
Currently, the best way is what you've already noticed and to just enable the check box on the vulnerability before you review it.
HP Application Security Center
02-13-2012 07:53 AM - edited 02-14-2012 07:55 AM
Scope for more improvements:
1. Option to checkout a scan against a particular user. In case multiple users has access to scan data then it is a possibility that both user may start working on same application in case of a miscommunication. So while analysing an application if it gets blocked against a user then this can be avoided....
2. If you are reviewing a vulnerability & then there is no option that can take you back to the previous state i.e. if you are checking Medium issues & you are analysing one of the items then if you click on scan details it will reload the whole page. If you click on back button then issue mentioned below occurs...
3. If you are reviewing a vulnerability & if you hit back button & then again review a new vulnerability the menu bar adds multiple items [ refer attached ]...
4. While creating report having vulnerability summary section High/Medium/Low headers do not appear that makes it difficult while navigating to an issue. [ refer AMP-VulnerabilitySummary_Report-Layout_Issue.png ]
5. The report cover page do not have the text "Web Assessment Report" which is present in case of WebInspect. Also scan duration/ report date / vulnerability counts are missing from scan information section of Executive Summary. Though its available under "Agreegate (obsolete)" section. [ refer missing details in AMP in WebInspect-Report-Layout.png ]
Thanks & stay secure,
02-14-2012 09:19 AM
A better trick here is to use Tags. In my demo image I have built out two tag groups, and then modified the grid you shared in the image to Group by those tags. The hierarchy I defined in the Grouping is Severity first, then Defect_Status tag, then User tag. With this in place, I can view only the Medium findings, broken out by Defect_Status groups, with sub-groupings by the assigned user.
Tag 1: user=
Examples: hans, rojo, joe, mike, et al
You could add one for your name. I use this tag extensively to later filter various Scans, vulns, et al in AMP to find the things I was working on. Once I am finished processing, I remove my name tag from the object.
Tag 2: Defect_Status=
Examples: (blank) or "New", "In Process", "Reviewed", "Fixed", et al.
I use this tag only in the Vulnerabilities review screens, but there is no "limit" on using them for other objects, which may or may not suite your needs.
The Tags available in AMP are so open for your use that many customers never begin using them. It is hard to advise on best practices when you can tag with any combinations desired. Once you tag a single object with an entry, that new entry will be available for yourself and others when in the Tagging dialog. When the last object with that tag entry has that tag removed, then that entry will disappear from the Tagging dialog/selection window. the Tag option shows up when configuring scans (auto-tag upon completion), defining Filtering Views (upper right of main screen), Scans, Sites, Vulnerabilities, et al.
If you discover a useful set of Tags for working with your scan data in AMP, I would recommend documenting that for your AMP user community so everyone understands its use and how to work with it to their benefit.
-- Habeas Data