<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>CWE-778 on guy@secdev.uk</title>
    <link>https://www.secdev.uk/blog/tags/cwe-778/</link>
    <description>Recent content in CWE-778 on guy@secdev.uk</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <copyright>Guy Dixon | guy@secdev.uk</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.secdev.uk/blog/tags/cwe-778/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Logging Failures</title>
      <link>https://www.secdev.uk/blog/technology/2025-05-24-logging-failures/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.secdev.uk/blog/technology/2025-05-24-logging-failures/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;When I started researching logging failures for this post, I expected to find dramatic exploit chains. Instead, what I found was something more unsettling, the absence of evidence. The most frustrating thing about incident response isn&amp;rsquo;t finding a sophisticated exploit; it&amp;rsquo;s opening the log aggregator and finding nothing. No entries, no breadcrumbs, no evidence that anything happened at all. That&amp;rsquo;s CWE-778 (Insufficient Logging), and it&amp;rsquo;s the backbone of OWASP A09: Security Logging and Monitoring Failures. This isn&amp;rsquo;t a crash or a data leak in the traditional sense; it&amp;rsquo;s the absence of evidence. When your incident response team can&amp;rsquo;t investigate what was never recorded, the attacker wins by default. In this post, I&amp;rsquo;m going to walk through logging failures across Python, Java, and Go, from the obvious missing-log-statement to the subtle cases where logging exists but captures the wrong data, at the wrong level, or silently drops events under load.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
