Christian Heinrich christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Wed Feb 26 06:44:31 UTC 2014

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> For the record, Christian is comparing disclosing pictures of a security
> practitioners wife and kids by hacking into a photo sharing site with making
> threats of damage to the OWASP Foundation via a tweet to an OWASP Board
> member.  To say that these are the same because they are both "Social Media"
> represents a gross misunderstanding of ethics in general.

There were no photos of his "wife on holiday" (has a hidden meaning
which you can disclose with Google) or his kids in the bath (i.e.
child pornography).  It was a fabrication that was made by Chris

Furthermore, Chris Gatford's former employer endorses my action too
i.e. http://www.zdnet.com/penetration-testing-employees-social-media-to-improve-policy-7000017234/

The fact is Chris can't present
https://www.slideshare.net/ChrisGatford/social-media-abuse-hacking and
then not be held to account.

Again, my Tweets are clearly labelled "Protected" which is commonly
understood to be not for publication i.e.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> Again, Christian is making wild claims of ethics violations without even
> calling out the specific violations or providing evidence of the violation.
> Does anyone know or understand what Christian is saying about the IRS and
> OWASP/Jim Manico?

Jim receives advice from someone in his family who works at the IRS,
who he consulted (and was subsequently corrected by) for his recent
failed attack against the OWASP Top Ten and Aspect Security.

Google "Jim Manico" IRS inurl:owasp-board for references

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> To be clear, this actually says "Jeff decides and Dinis manipulates".
> Yiannis says nothing about Josh or Jim.  This is an outright lie by
> Christian.  Martin, please tender this into evidence as an example of
> Christian fabricating evidence.

This is clearly dated in January 2011 and well before Josh or Jim
become OWASP Board Members and furthermore "i.e." indicates "for
instance" meaning in the present time.

This is at best Josh clutching at straws since I also provided the URL.

Can someone please let me know why Yiannis is still an OWASP Member in
light of his continued violations of the OWASP Code of Ethics but I
know the answer is selective judgement right Josh and Jim?

BTW, I support Yiannis %100 and Jim found no ethical qualms in
scheduling an interview with him on JBroFuzz to support his election
to the OWASP Board.

Christian Heinrich


More information about the Governance mailing list