[Owasp-board] Additional Brand Abuse

Bev Corwin bev.corwin at owasp.org
Sat Dec 6 15:48:52 UTC 2014


Dear Tobias,

Sorry for any confusion. I probably should have made it clear that I was
speaking in general and not referring to any particular case. There were a
number of discussions on this topic, several examples, some regarding use
of brand, others not. In this particular case, the name "OWASP" is part of
the brand, whether or not it uses the logo. The trade name should be
treated similarly as the logo, especially if used in marketing . Best
wishes.

Bev

Sincerely,
Bev


On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

>  Bev,
> it seems I am not seeing the page you are seeing, because I didn't see the
> OWASP logo on that page, that you are referring to.
> Could you please send a link to the page that is holding the OWASP logo?
> Thanks, Tobias
>
>
>
> On 06/12/14 01:40, Bev Corwin wrote:
>
> Howdy all! My 2 cents:
>
>  Ask them to remove the OWASP logo brand, etc., that OWASP does not
> "endorse", has brand use policies, etc.
>
>  Ask them to link to the OWASP pages that apply to their discussion.
>
>  Ask them to move it from the "marketing" area of the website to their
> blog.
>
>  Best wishes,
> Bev
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>>  Josh,
>>
>> What I suggest is that corporate/product-centric OWASP brand usage needs
>> to be approved of beforehand by the board, staff or brand committee (one
>> official structure, not all three). That would give us a chance to have a
>> "nice conversation" with folks before they use the brand as opposed to
>> having to have to police the brand.
>>
>> Regardless of our resources, I feel the OWASP brand is abused to a great
>> degree and it dilutes what we are trying to accomplish. It's also a
>> violation of our non-commercial, vendor-neutral rules of play.
>>
>> - Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/5/14 10:10 AM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>
>>  Jim,
>>
>> I totally understand where you are coming from.  However, the minute the
>> PCI DSS 1.0 asserted that companies needed to "Develop all web applications
>> based on secure coding guidelines such as the Open Web Application Security
>> Project guidelines", those materials became more than just an informational
>> document.  They are now part of the PCI DSS standard which is supported by
>> the for-profit corporations AMEX, Discover, JCB, Mastercard, and VISA.  And
>> because of the mandatory compliance requirements behind PCI DSS, companies
>> are willing to pay for solutions to meet those requirements.  Acunetix is
>> just one of many companies making claims on their ability to fulfill PCI
>> DSS requirement 6.5, regardless of whether it is even possible for anyone
>> to do so (I agree with you here).  So, if you truly have a problem with
>> vendors using OWASP as a way to increase profits, then the root of this
>> "problem" is the fact that it is included on the PCI DSS to begin with.
>> That said, my personal take on it is that having it as a requirement on the
>> PCI DSS has probably been better visbility for OWASP than just about
>> anything else out there.  So, even if it were possible to have it removed
>> (something I don't think is possible given the open source license on it),
>> I'm not sure we would want to.  So, in the end, I think that OWASP is
>> responsible for putting out good, free, documents, that the public can
>> consume, and as long as abuse isn't blatant, we should first look at intent
>> before rousing the troops against them.  In this case, the vendor is simply
>> saying that they scan for the issues in the standard.  We are not equipped
>> to run around testing every vendor to see if their claims about that are
>> true.
>>
>>  ~josh
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Josh,
>>>
>>> There is a history (ISSA, ISC2, Apache, etc) where non profit security
>>> or developer organizations do not to allow companies to use their
>>> non-profit brand for product marketing.
>>>
>>> I feel that *strongly* protecting the OWASP brand from being used in
>>> commercial marketing is both a part of our non-profit mission (vendor
>>> neutral, non commercial) as well as being one of the main roles of our
>>> fiduciary duty as board members.
>>>
>>> Again, this is not just my opinion. There is a great deal of precedent
>>> in this area from similar organizations.
>>> - Jim
>>>
>>> PS: As a side note, The OWASP Top Ten is not addressable by a product, I
>>> can explain that in detail if you wish. (Just look at A5).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/18/14 5:53 AM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>>
>>>  My personal opinion is that this is fine.  The OWASP Top 10 is a
>>> published standard and Acunetix is claiming that they are capable of
>>> scanning for the issues identified in the OWASP Top 10 standard.  I don't
>>> think that we should be responsible for policing whether or not they
>>> actually do what they say they do.  With that line being pretty blurry to
>>> begin with, I doubt Acunetix is the only company advertising in this
>>> manner.  And as long as they're not claiming to be "OWASP Certified", or
>>> the like, I think this is not worth pursuing.
>>>
>>>  ~josh
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Folks,
>>>>
>>>> When we do a google search for "OWASP" I see that Acunetix is
>>>> advertising that they are scanning for the OWASP Top Ten. The ad links to
>>>> http://www.acunetix.com/vulnerability-scanner/scan-website-owasp-top-10-risks/
>>>>
>>>> I think this ad violates the following brand usage guidelines:
>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Marketing/Resources#The_Brand_Usage_Rules
>>>>
>>>> 5) The OWASP Brand must not be used in a manner that suggests that The
>>>> OWASP Foundation supports, advocates, or recommends any particular product
>>>> or technology.
>>>>
>>>> 7) The OWASP Brand must not be used in a manner that suggests that a
>>>> product or technology can enable compliance with any OWASP Materials other
>>>> than an OWASP Published Standard.
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> 8) The OWASP Brand must not be used in any materials that could mislead
>>>> readers by narrowly interpreting a broad application security category. For
>>>> example, a vendor product that can find or protect against forced browsing
>>>> must not claim that they address all of the access control category.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to file this with our compliance officer, but I think he
>>>> is over-burdened right now. Do you think this is a clear violation and if
>>>> so, should we approach them in a gentle way with suggestions to correct
>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>> Aloha,
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20141206/30b4052b/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list