Some categories in the ASVS are easier to check than others. For example
Section~\ref{sec:v6}. A lot of possible attack vectors were not available just
because the were not used. In other cases the verdict was an easy fail since
some components, like input escaping, are just not present.
%
%TODO
%- Vandaag verdict (puntjes) uploaden (iedereen)!
%- Na morgen heeft iedereen de resultaten van Fortify een keer bekeken
%- Aanpak beschrijven, vóór volgende bijeenkomst (Daan)
%- Iedereen een stuk reflectie schrijven (zie onder):
%- Spreadsheet bouwen, vóór volgende bijeenkomst (Charlie)
%
%Uit opdracht:
%
%Reflection
%Reflect on the whole process, including
%
%   the ASVS,
%   the use of static code analysis tools,
%   the way you organised the process,
%   and possibly also the TestCMS code.
%
%For example, questions to consider are:
%   - Kelley:  How good (useful, clear, ...) is the ASVS? How could it be improved?
%   - Charlie: How useful were code analysis tools? How could they be improved? How did you experience the rates and amounts of false and true positives? How might that be improved?
%   - Wouter:  What were the bottlenecks in doing the security review in your experience?
%   - Mart:    Maybe in the points above you can distinguish different (types of) security flaws or verification requirements. E.g., are some (categories of) verification requirements easier to check than others?
%   - Daan:    If you would have to do something like this again, what would you do differently? Eg. about organising things within the group: i.e., in retrospect, what do you think the best approach is to organise and divide the work in a team? (Dividing the verification requirements over the team members? Or by dividing the code? Or letting everyone look at everything, because different people will spot different things? Or work in pairs where one person confirms the findings of the other? ...)
%   - Kelley:  About the TestCMS code: are there important aspects that could (or should) be changed to improve security? Or aspects that could be changed to facilitate doing a security review?
%   - Wouter:  This last question might be generalised, to (web) applications in general, rather than this specific example of the TestCMS: ie. if you were to develop an application that will need to be subjected to a security review, would you do anything differently, given your experience in doing this, and if so, what and why?



\subsection{On our auditing process}
\input{reflection.auditing_process.tex}

\subsection{On the bottlenecks}
\input{reflection.bottlenecks.tex}

\subsection{On the ASVS checklist}
\input{reflection.asvs.tex}

\subsection{On HP Fortify / automated code analysis tools}
\input{reflection.tools.tex}

\subsection{?}
(TODO: Mart)

\subsection{On the code \& streamlining subsequent security audits}
\input{reflection.code_and_auditing.tex}

\subsection{TestCMS code security}
\input{reflection.testcms_code.tex}

\subsection{On the general development of secure software}
\input{reflection.secure_development.tex}
