[Owasp-board] Additional Brand Abuse

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Tue Nov 18 17:46:58 UTC 2014

And Josh, regardless of wether we agree, I'm very glad to see you jump into
this conversation. If you have time, I'd love your help in clarifying and
updating the brand rules with Noreens and others support.

Jim Manico
(808) 652-3805

On Nov 18, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> 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.


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20141118/b69e3b59/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list