SLF4J VS ZAP

A few years ago, my team moved from Java to Go. Working on Go projects, we encountered a wide variety of logging frameworks with different APIs, configuration, and formatting. We soon found ourselves longing for a logging abstraction layer like Java’s slf4j, which had proven invaluable for use in reusable libraries or configuring and debugging production systems. So, not long after moving to Go, we began working toward replacing what we had lost in slf4j.

I'm not familiar with Serilog as I code mostly in Java, use slf4j (logs to stdout) and our apps send logs to Cloudwatch using the task definition's awslogs configuration. I prefer it this way because I can customize the log configurations in my task definitions. Also the default stream name has this format prefix-name/container-name/ecs-task-id so I can easily identify the logs of the task I want to look at. I haven't experienced any downsides with this approach and our apps publish a shit ton of logs. Cloudwatch approach looks like you can customize the stream name?

slf4j is open source. You can look at the code.

Java -> Logback, Log4j2, JDK (Java Util Logging), Slf4j, e.t.c.

slf4j para padronização dos logs;

SLF4J

> My God. Logging in protobuf?

Yes, or any other data format and/or transport protocol.

I'm surprised this is up for debate.

> Logging is the lowest of all debugging utilities - its the first thing you ever do writing software - “hello world”. And, while I admire structural logging, the truth is printing strings remains (truly) the lowest common denominator across software developers.

This sort of comment is terribly miopic. You can have a logging API, and then configure your logging to transport the events anywhere, any way. This is a terribly basic feature and requirement, and one that comes out of the box with some systems. Check how SLF4J[1] is pervasive in Java, and how any SLF4J implementation offers logging to stdout or a local file as a very specific and basic usecase.

It turns out that nowadays most developers write software that runs on many computers that aren't stashed over or under their desks, and thus they need efficient and convenient ways to check what's happening either in a node or in all deployments.

[1] https://www.slf4j.org/

I use ZAP [1] with the OAST add-on for this at the moment. I admit the UX isn't perfect, but it serves my purpose.

If I also want control over the responses (e.g. return a 401 status code for every fifth request), I have a custom extender script [2] for that.

[1]: https://www.zaproxy.org/

Implement tools like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP for in-depth security scanning of your APIs.

OWASP ZAP

The use of capital punctuation implies a warning? an alert? Would this same response be warranted for Burp which is also a commercial, closed source product?

If this is an issue for some, then ZAP being open source[1] maybe favourable.

That said, Burp is the defacto tool for a reason - it's best in class. Every pentester I know, including myself, has a paid subscription. The fact that it's closed source hasn't been an issue.

[1] https://github.com/zaproxy/zaproxy

Briefly reviewed your product. Seems like OWASP ZAP is your competition: https://www.zaproxy.org/

It runs entirely in the browser so it uses the browser "native" frameworks.

Dynamic analysis involves testing your application while it's running. Tools like OWASP ZAP and Burp Suite can help identify vulnerabilities like SQL injection or Cross-Site Scripting by sending malicious requests to your application and analyzing the responses.

> Lying is not an embellishment or puffery, it's a lie. Engaging a company for a 3 day pen test that's totally insufficient, that would be an embellishment.

I agree, but if the RFP question was phrased "have you done penetration testing?" then that leaves a lot of room for embellishment. If the question is "do you have SOC2 certification?" and you answer "yes" untruthfully, then that is a lie. If they ask for the SOC2 or pentest report and you give them a falsified document, that's where you're (probably) committing fraud.

> One of the most important part of pen tests is that they are external.

AWS/Google/etc have internal security teams doing their pen tests, so no, this isn't true.

> Just doing your job as an engineer and looking for bugs is not a pen test.

What about an engineer spending an afternoon running ZAP[0]?

> It's like saying, "what is an audit really? We have accountants and they check our books for anomalies."

Yeah, which is why you don't just ask a company "do you keep track of your finances?" if you're investing in them, you request external auditors.

[0] https://www.zaproxy.org/

In addition to manual security reviews, you can also implement DevSecOps practices to automate security checks. For example, you can set up a CI/CD pipeline to run static code analysis tools like CodeQL and automatically run penetration tests using tools like OWASP ZAP.

OWASP ZAP (open source)

I would start by installing Burp Suite or OWASP Zap and seeing what the actual messages look like