by adrien » Nov 23 04 4:33 pm
Hi
The issue of independent certification is a sticky one, which we have considered before. With all due respect to the certification organisations, we haven't yet really seen a hugely compelling reason to seek certification. Mainly because of several drawbacks to it, namely:
a) it is expensive (you pay a fairly sizeable fee to cover the testing)
b) it is only given for one version of the software, if you develop another or put out an upgrade, you need to get it re-certified, since at any stage it is possible to introduce vulnerabilities. We frequently put out updates.
c) they can only "black-box" test the product with known tests - i.e. they can only test for what they know. They don't get the source code to analyse and look for weaknesses in.
There are of course some obvious advantages as well, but overall, from the customer's perspective these certifications are usually justified by a developer primarily in terms of marketing value.
To date for this we have relied on real world experiences by users. We have many installations in banks and other security-conscious organisations, we protect our own servers with the product, and are subjected to a multitude of attacks on a daily basis. Battle-hardening is a key to security that cannot be overlooked.
So in summary, the jury is constantly out on this topic, it is not written off forever. There may well be a time in the future where we decide the best path is to seek certification.