OWASP / OWASP/OpenCRE

Add AISVS 1.0 mappings

Open
#1,016 2 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
Python
Stars
180
Forks
137
Avg merge
3d 23h
Merged PRs (30d)
21

Description

Hi!

Attached files have two alternative proposals of adding AISVS mappings to OpenCRE. This took longer than expected and for the same reason there are now several attachments.

At this point I have been looking at these too long and would appreciate maintainers second pair of eyes having a look at the proposals.

Attachment contents

File Purpose
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-CONSOLIDATED.xls The actual submission. CRE mapping template with AISVS columns appended.
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-CONSOLIDATED.csv Same data as CSV, for diffing.
new_cre_proposals_v2.csv The 6 proposed new CREs: driving requirements, chapters, suggested parent, full text.
MAPPING-READABLE-v2.md Full mapping as per-chapter tables, for review without a spreadsheet.
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-FORCED.xls Fallback variant with zero new CREs.
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-FORCED.csv Same as CSV again.
FORCED-MAPPING-RATIONALE-v2.md What forcing the remaining gaps onto existing CREs costs.

Conventions

Modelled after ASVS entries in OpenCRE:

  • OWASP AISVS|name has the full requirement sentence (same way ASVS uses section).
  • OWASP AISVS|id has the native requirement ID, for example 1.1.1.
  • OWASP AISVS|hyperlink is a section-level link into the chapter file. AISVS has no per-requirement anchors, same limitation as ASVS.
  • OWASP AISVS|description has the AISVS level and my rough confidence rating, plus a forced: <rating> suffix on rows where the mapping was a substitute for reviewers to focus on where I wasn't that sure.

The 6 proposed new CREs

Proposed CRE Drives Chapter
Agent action reversibility gating 9.2.3, 9.2.4, 9.2.10 C9
Agent action approval integrity 9.2.2, 9.2.8 C9
Agent tool capability declaration and enforcement 9.3.3, 9.3.4 C9
Agent action chain non-repudiation 9.4.2 C9
Token passthrough prohibition in AI tool servers 10.2.7 C10
AI tool definition change detection 10.4.8 C10

All six are in the agentic-chapters (C9/C10) that postdate most standards currently in OpenCRE. Forcing any of these into an existing CRE creates just noise for users of CREs.

FORCED-MAPPING-RATIONALE-v2.md walks through each, but the short version is: least privilege does not express reversibility, privacy consent does not express canonicalised action parameters, an SDLC audit trail does not express cryptographic binding of a runtime chain, and OAuth revocation does not express confused-deputy prevention.

Deferred proposals

Following AISVS controls I decided to now intentionally force-fit rather than propose new CREs. Maintainer input is welcome on the deferred four.

Withdrawn proposal Now maps to Fitness for mapping
AI compute environment attestation (4.1.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.3) 347-352, 171-222, 307-507 strained
AI compute tenant isolation (5.3.2, 8.1.1) 515-021, 273-600 wrong / strained
AI-generated content provenance marking (7.4.4) 810-884 acceptable
AI input drift detection (12.3.1, 12.3.4) 058-083, 418-853 acceptable / strained

One of these (5.3.2 → 515-021 network isolation) is still a wrong forced fit: network isolation cannot stop GPU-memory side channels. I am flagging it here because withdrawing the proposal is a scoping decision, not a claim that the gap disappears. If a later CREs adds compute-isolation coverage, that mapping could be added.

new_cre_proposals_v2.csv
forced_mapping_v2.csv
MAPPING-READABLE-v2.md
FORCED-MAPPING-RATIONALE-v2.md
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-FORCED.xls
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-FORCED.csv
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-CONSOLIDATED.xls
AISVS-1.0-OpenCRE-mapping-v2-CONSOLIDATED.csv

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by reviewing MAPPING-READABLE-v2.md, new_cre_proposals_v2.csv, and FORCED-MAPPING-RATIONALE-v2.md alongside the existing ASVS mappings in OpenCRE. Compare the proposed AISVS mappings and six new CREs with current conventions, then seek maintainer decisions on which proposals and forced mappings are accepted. Done means the reviewed mapping data and any approved CRE additions are ready to incorporate.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
content, security
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Activity status
Active
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
35/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.