[Owasp-board] RSA and the application of Justice

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Wed Jan 8 21:42:50 UTC 2014


Josh,

Like I said, I feel what we are doing fits under "punitive actions". We are
penalizing them with our actions from my perspective. We are backing away
from a contract that we spent time working on, we are making a public
statement about weakening crypto...

And I believe we are enacting this punishment unevenly, without having all
facts on the table. I also feel that taking DHS money demonstrates
inconsistency in our policies.

I'd rather follow through with these commitments, and continue to track the
situation.  I'd also like to see OWASP take a less surgical approach to
this (ie: something that effects one vendor) and work on a more general
stand on this issue.

Two more notes:

1) I'm shocked at what RSA allegedly did and do not approve.
2) I am suspect of the entire commercial conference partnership program
since it clearly violates vendor neutrality in my opinion.

Aloha,
--
Jim Manico
@Manicode
(808) 652-3805

On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

Jim,

This is not about justice, in my opinion, nor should it ever be.  We are
not making statements about what RSA did or did not do, nor are we passing
any judgement on the purported actions.  This is about OWASP distancing
itself from any contracts or actions that may imply that we are tied to RSA
as the actual jury (not OWASP) is still out on that and we do not want the
results to impact the Foundation in any way.

As for your statements about the DHS grants, I'm not necessarily sure that
these two things are even related.  Giving back money that was granted with
the intent to bolster specific projects with the intent strengthen our
communal security out of some ideal of balanced justice just doesn't make
sense to me.  Especially given that a DHS grant has nothing to do with NSA
weakening crypto or paying off corporations to do so.  But....I would
strongly encourage these project leaders to look at the crypto in their
applications (if any) and ensure that they are using best practices and do
not use any of the challenged crypto.  We are doing good things and serving
the community with this money and I believe we should continue to do so.

~josh


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> The mythopoetical depiction of justice throughout history is an
> interesting study. The Roman depiction of Lady Justice is blindfolded. The
> Goddess Maat and Isis were depicted with balanced scales during Egyptian
> times. Lady Justice is also depicted with scales and sword as well as being
> blindfolded.
>
>
>
> The point is that justice should be applied evenly, without regard to who
> the punished is, to be dispensed evenly to all, with the same kind of
> punishment.
>
>
>
> Make no mistake, the public pull-out of our marketing co-agreement with
> RSA is a punishment that is harmful to the RSA brand.
>
>
>
> What I feel we have done is enact “justice” through “the anger of the
> masses” on an issue where the information is still being sorted out and,
> ahem, **many** more are guilty of similar “sins” if not worse.
>
>
>
> If we are to walk away from RSA, then we also need to give back or walk
> away from our Department of Homeland Security grants. To “slap” one while
> taking money from another I think is inconsistent wide-open targeted
> justice that will hurt more than help us in the end. This is not blind
> justice. I am NOT SAYING that RSA is innocent, in fact I am quite angry at
> what RSA is alleged to have done. I am saying that many more are guilty and
> we are not applying fair and consistent rules. We might also be acting “too
> soon” before all the facts are on the table.
>
>
>
> I am deeply in conflict of interest here because I am supposed to deliver
> this training and I’m also a professional trainer. But I wanted to state my
> nuanced position here that we should continue down the current path and
> decide in the future to cancel this agreement and other agreements once the
> facts are sorted out.
>
>
>
> And last, we are supposed to be vendor-neutral. I am starting to question
> the entire commercial conference partnership program.
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_AppSec_Conference We might
> want to cancel conference partnerships with any commercial conference due
> to the vendor neutrality rules in our bylaws.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your consideration over this matter. It’s not an easy one.
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
> Jim Manico
>
> OWASP Board Member
>
> @Manicode
>
> (808) 652-3806
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140108/9dd7cc55/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list