Developing a Secure Web Application Using OWASP Guidelines
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing a secure Web application is very difficult task. Therefore developers need a guideline to help them to develop a secure Web application. Guideline can be used as a checklist for developer to achieve minimum standard of secure Web application. This study evaluates how good is OWASP guideline in helping developer to build secure Web application. The developed system is then tested using code auditing and penetration testing to identify the achievement of the system security for the application. After applying the testing techniques from Open Source Security Testing Methodology (OSSTMM) on the Top Ten Critical vulnerabilities as defined by OWASP, a standard measure score are calculated. The score is used to decide on the level of security of the developed web application. A high percentage score would indicate that the guideline helps in building a secured web application. Hence, the result proved that OWASP guideline is effective in ensuring the trustworthiness of the system and can be used as referral by other web developer especially in developing applications for a university.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it