[Owasp-board] Need guidance on providing OWASP quote to Veracode

Jeff Williams jeff.williams at owasp.org
Mon Jun 28 17:01:32 UTC 2010


I'll follow up with them today about this and ask if they've made any
progress on their claimed transparency.  As I mentioned at the outset, if
they're not transparent about what they cover and what they do, then I don't
think the quote is justified.

 

Tom, were you suggesting that we shouldn't do *any* quote about companies
that are non-members?

 

--Jeff

 

 

From: dinis cruz [mailto:dinis.cruz at owasp.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 9:53 AM
To: Brennan - OWASP
Cc: Jeff Williams; OWASP Foundation Board List; Cornell Dan
Subject: Re: [Owasp-board] Need guidance on providing OWASP quote to
Veracode

 

Sorry last email was sent to soon, the last comment I was making was (new
bit in bold):

 

... And yes, your list of firms around OWASP is just a small subset of the
companies that would want to play this game (note how Jeff's quote (which
eventually will become OWASP's quote) is sending a 'parallel' message that
'some' product companies are dangerously asserting Top 10 coverage and
compliance

Dinis Cruz



On 28 June 2010 14:50, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

We need to have both quotes

 

one that is generic for each type of user or type of usage of OWASP
materials

one that is specific to a particular scenario (like the Veracode one) 


For reference here is the original quote that Jeff proposed that we gave
Veracode:

 

"The OWASP Foundation is pleased that Veracode will support the Top 10.
Managing application security requires an understanding of what has been
checked and what has not. Veracode's message of transparency and combining
both manual and automated verification techniques stand in stark contrast to
those product vendors that wrongly and dangerously assert complete Top 10
coverage and compliance."

 

I think this is a very important quote for OWASP to be providing and we need
to do it.

 

BUT (as I said in previous emails) we need to do this under a clear process
and (in the beginning) under a 'this is an experiment' banner'

 

And yes, your list of firms around OWASP is just a small subset of the
companies that would want to play this game (note how Jeff's quote (which
eventually will become OWASP's q

 


Dinis Cruz

Blog: http://diniscruz.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DinisCruz
Web: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/O2





On 28 June 2010 14:44, Brennan - OWASP <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:

Sounds like you are suggesting a (3) generic or blanket quote to be used by
corporate, university and industry  sponsors in unification of the Owasp
mission 

 

Look at core firms look around the room

 

Aspect

WhiteHat

Trustwave

Denim

Fortify

Veracode

Columbia

NYC poly

Salesforce

<insert>....

 

Keep it simple.  As a value of membership you get to use one of these in
releases as you are a recognized supporter.  If you want to hire or retain
PR company they would tell you the same ( I just called a buddy in the PR
industry for her thoughts )

Tom Brennan

973-506-9303

 


On Jun 28, 2010, at 9:14 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

I don't think that faireness is the issue here , but the process of how we
do this (and we need to look at this from OWASP's point if view, not from
veracode's)

 

I don't see how we can deliver these 'official OWASP quotes' outside of our
website! 

 

What would be the delivery mechanism? An email from a board member? An email
from an OWASP employee? Is that email that will make it an official OWASP
quote?

 

Some of these opinions have the potential to generate some controversy
(which in some cases is going to be a good thing), but we have to make sure
we have a solid and clear process.

 

Given the urgency of the request and the fact that it is the first one, we
can explicitly shortcut some of the steps (like the public consultation
period) 

 

BUT we have to:

 

a) make it come from a special page on the OWASP website

b) present it as an experiment (where we are still trying to figure out the
rules of engagement)  


Dinis Cruz


On 26 Jun 2010, at 18:38, Jeff Williams <jeff.williams at owasp.org> wrote:

It's not fair to preempt their press release.

--Jeff

 

Jeff Williams

Aspect Security

work: 410-707-1487

main: 301-604-4882

 

 


On Jun 25, 2010, at 4:52 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

Have they seen your quote?

 

Due to the time restraints, then lets publish the first ideas on how this
could work in the Wiki at the same time that we give them the quote.

 

In fact they should get the quote from the Wiki


Dinis Cruz


On 25 Jun 2010, at 21:25, Jeff Williams <jeff.williams at owasp.org> wrote:

They're on kind of a short burn for this particular quote.  How about we
give them the quote and then put that infrastructure in place afterwards.

 

--Jeff

 

 

From: dinis cruz [mailto:dinis.cruz at owasp.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Jeff Williams
Cc: OWASP Foundation Board List
Subject: Re: [Owasp-board] Need guidance on providing OWASP quote to
Veracode

 

Hi Jeff, 

 

I definitely think that OWASP should have 'on the record' quotes about what
3rd parties are doing with OWASP's projects.

 

In terms of workflow and rules, I would like to propose that:

 

*	All quotes are placed in specific locations of the OWASP Wiki (i.e.
on a dedicated pages which could be global to OWASP or project specific)
where it is obvious that those are OWASP Official quotes (this page should
be protected from non-wiki-admin edits)
*	For each 'official OWASP quote' there should be a period of
consultation where all interrest parties have the opportunity to 'on the
record' comment (namely OWASP Committee members and leaders)
*	The first pass at the 'quote' should be made by the board or a
committee that we delegate the responsibility (maybe the Industry one (when
it becomes alive again))
*	After the consultation period, the board has final decision on the
final wording of the text
*	There are cases where the 'OWASP official quote' will probably be
'OWASP has no comment on this topic'

What do you think? We should use this Veracode request to try this out
(which again should be presented to our community as an 'experiment')


Dinis Cruz



On 24 June 2010 03:35, Jeff Williams <jeff.williams at owasp.org> wrote:

Here's the background.  Veracode is going to start supporting the OWASP T10
output format.  They are making a big deal about how OWASP has grown to
achieve widespread industry acceptance, blah blah blah.  They are also
pushing a clear message that gaining assurance involves a combination of
both automated and manual testing.

 

On the call, I asked them whether they would be willing to be very clear
about exactly which of the OWASP T10 recommendations their product/service
verifies.  This was my minimum bar for participating.  At the high end, I
asked if they would go through the ASVS and indicate which of those they can
verify.

 

Essentially, all they're doing is what everyone does: say that their service
solves the OWASP T10.   I think we should ONLY support these statements if
the vendor is willing to FULLY disclose exactly what their coverage is and
how it is achieved.  That goes right to the core of the issue we've been
discussing.  I think we can support these commercial vendors as long as they
do their part in making security *visible*.

 

So they've asked me for a quote.  Assuming they disclose, I'm thinking
something like.

 

"The OWASP Foundation is pleased that Veracode will support the Top 10.
Managing application security requires an understanding of what has been
checked and what has not. Veracode's message of transparency and combining
both manual and automated verification techniques stand in stark contrast to
those product vendors that wrongly and dangerously assert complete Top 10
coverage and compliance." 

 

VOTE: Do you think OWASP should issue quotes like this when vendors do
something that 1) involves OWASP and 2) is basically in line with our
principles.  Or should we just stay clear.

 

--Jeff

 

Jeff Williams, Chair

The OWASP Foundation

work: 410-707-1487

main: 301-604-4882

 


_______________________________________________
Owasp-board mailing list
Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board

 

_______________________________________________
Owasp-board mailing list
Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20100628/bb8f4df7/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list