[Owasp-board] Additional Brand Abuse

Tom Brennan - OWASP tomb at owasp.org
Sun Dec 7 13:39:22 UTC 2014


We can solve the branding issue by creating approved logos to be used
by project leaders, project participants, members.  Include the status
and year in the logo.

Using approved logos can be leveraged like like a community Trustmark.

We have a graphics person on staff --- use them.




On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Bev Corwin <bev.corwin at owasp.org> wrote:
> Thank you Tobias, All good points and well taken. I agree. Best wishes, Bev
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bev,
>>
>> thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your email initially as that
>> you were referring to a company using our logo on their website, which would
>> indeed need approval by OWASP.
>>
>> I can sense that we have some careful balancing when it comes to
>> protection of our brand.
>> On the one hand we want to help the people and industry at large improving
>> security and in that process also to refer to us and our many projects, on
>> the other hand we want to avoid that a text is misunderstood in a way that
>> we would endorse a specific product, proprietary technology or business.
>> A fine line to walk and possibly we will face a couple of cases were we
>> are not totally sure about it.
>>
>> Thinking about at this, I am not sure it's the right path to add "brand
>> usage" onto the plate of the compliance officer. The main need for our
>> independent compliance officer is to avoid conflict of interest when it
>> comes to investigating internal problems among staff, leaders or board
>> members. For this an independent compliance officer is important. However,
>> he is a community volunteer and his time is limited. And the protection of
>> our brand and guiding other companies on how to refer to OWASP correctly
>> does not have that risk of conflict of interest. Am thinking whether based
>> on general brand usage guidelines (which we already have, but maybe need to
>> be more detailed guidance) set by the community and the board, maybe we
>> could delegate this to one of our staff instead or a community team to
>> communicate carefully and in a positive manner with our partners in the
>> industry. By this we could keep the work load of the compliance within
>> reasonable levels, so that he will have enough time when it comes to cases
>> that require his independent investigation.
>>
>> E.g. to enhance the guidelines, we could even add a few examples about how
>> good usage or our OWASP brand looks like. I appreciate that we may have a
>> large variety of views among our community about what level of mentioning
>> OWASP by others is ok or we even wish for. And I hope we could in the
>> process of a discussion achieve to find a wider consensus on this with which
>> everybody is feeling ok....
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/12/14 22:48, Bev Corwin wrote:
>>
>> 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 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
>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list