[Owasp-board] Apology from Jim Manico

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Fri Jan 10 05:12:42 UTC 2014

Christian, do you have contacts at the NSA or the ASIS? I bet they have
a copy of our conversation since it was an international Skype call.
Perhaps they could give us a copy so we could settle this dispute? I
don't have a copy since I deleted it as soon as you asked me to delete it.

Thanks and have a great day,

> Jim,
> In light of both:
> 1. http://www.hackersforcharity.org/hackers-for-charity/paypal-shuts-us-down/
> vs your claim to family relations within the IRS (FYI Jim Manico wants
> to step down after his term on the OWASP Board to join HFC)
> 2. http://cmlh.id.au/post/57402913158/jodymelbourne-doxed vs "I'm
> trying to protect a OWASP member who feels very attacked and violated"
> to quote Jim's own statement within
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005315.html
> BTW and in case you ask Ben Grubb was instructed not to tape the
> interview prior to conducting it with me in May 2011 which in turn he
> deliberately ignored and he deliberately also omitted from his edited
> transcript http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/journalists-facebook-arrest-transcript-of-police-interview-20110518-1esrr.html
> The transcript of the interview conducted between Ben Grubb and I was
> subsequently released as part of the Freedom of Information Request
> with Queensland Police and upheld the claim that the presentation at
> B-Sides Australia was not delivered under the premise that I had an
> issue with Chris Gatford since when I was asked this by Ben Grubb this
> was rumour swiftly denied by me during the interview.  Ben Grubb was
> found to be making this up and was warned by several other journalist
> that this was incorrect prior to the publication of his
> sensationalised article.
> Jim, your continued manipulation is to the same standard of ethics as
> White Hat Hacker supporter Ben Grubb i.e.
> https://twitter.com/bengrubb/status/420778707859427332
> Again, I look forward to receiving a public apology from OWASP and
> WhiteHat Security (including Jeremiah).
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Christian,
>> My mind was changed when you told me you were intentionally trying to
>> harm OWASP. It's my legal responsibility as a non-profit board member to
>> protect the organization from harm. So I'm no longer objective, which is
>> why I support Josh's committee for inquiry.
>> And another thing Christian, if I were you and found out someone was
>> recording me I would be PISSED OFF as well. I don't blame you for being
>> upset about the recording.
>> I really did not mean to record you. As soon as I realized it, I told
>> you, stopped doing it, and deleted the file. I never threatened you in
>> any way with the recording. No, I deleted it right away after your
>> requested that I do so.
>> Now if I took the recording and used it against you in some way, that
>> would be an entirely different matter.
>> So Christian, I understand why you are upset. But again, no recording.
>> Just my word.
>> Aloha,
>> Jim
>>> Michael,
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Michael Coates
>>> <michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> To make sure I understand correctly.
>>>> You are asking the owasp board to force jim to issue a public apology, on
>>>> behalf of a company, regarding the culture stated in an article and the
>>>> public perception of the company's culture?
>>>> Did I capture that request correctly?
>>> As you may recall, Jim Manico made several requests for an inquiry in
>>> relation to the events of May 2011 i.e.
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005295.html
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005299.html
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005301.html
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005306.html
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005308.html
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005315.html
>>> My request for an apology from Jim Manico is supported by two
>>> statement he made during this time:
>>> 1. "As a prominent member of OWASP what you do reflects on OWASP
>>> wether you like it or not." to quote Jim's own statement within
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005301.html
>>> 2. "I'm trying to protect a OWASP member who feels very attacked and
>>> violated" to quote Jim's own statement within
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005315.html
>>> Jim Manico has made these statements in his capacity as an OWASP Board
>>> Member his employer benefitted from the exposure.  Therefore, I am
>>> entitled to receive a public apology from Jim Manico on behalf of
>>> OWASP and WhiteHat Security.
>>> I will remind the OWASP Board that Dinis Cruz was allowed to undertake
>>> an inquiry against me even though the "Steven Steggles, Brad Empeigne
>>> and George Anelopolis" are are each listed as an "unverified source"
>>> within https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Inquiries/Google_Hacking_Project
>>> and therefore indicates that these people did not exist and that the
>>> accusations were baseless and made without any supporting body of
>>> evidence.
>>> If Dinis Cruz is allowed to conduct an inquiry under these
>>> extraordinary circumstances without any regard to natural justice then
>>> why am I not entitled to an apology from Jim Manico?
>>> However, in light of the overwhelming evidence against Aspect Security
>>> and their commercial business partner, Sonatype you elected not to
>>> undertake an inquiry of the OWASP Top Ten even thought several well
>>> known (I mean alive) OWASP members made complaint as documented within
>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Issues_Concerning_The_OWASP_Top_Ten_2013
>>> Can clarify this discrepancy involving Dinis and Jim, Michael?
>>> I look forward to receiving a public apology from Jim Manico, can it
>>> be printed on both OWASP and WhiteHat Security letterhead please?

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list