[Owasp-board] Additional Brand Abuse

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Tue Nov 18 19:11:47 UTC 2014


Do our brand guidelines cover this at all. Do we have a gap in our policies
about this?


Jim Manico
(808) 652-3805

On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Noreen Whysel <nwhysel at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jim,

We have had a request from the NZ chapter regarding conference banner
logos. We may want to address this in the guidelines as well. None of the
current events appear to be using the banner on the BANNER page, but do
seem to have the OWASP name and some version of the wasp image.

I like allowing local chapters to customize logos to the venue and local
tastes but perhaps we should request at minimum to have "OWASP" and wasp
image in the banner, and then provide a series of template layered images
with a variety of color/transparency/shadow/etc.?


On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> The language in the add is:
> "OWASP Top Ten Web Scanner", which I feel is wrong. There are several
> areas which DAST scanners cannot assess in the Top Ten, to say the least.
> This leads to "OWASP Top Ten Education" and "OWASP Top Ten Code Analysis"
> which blurs the line between the OWASP brand and the commercial world.
> Also, from my research I've noted that all of the foundations similar to
> OWASP have much more clear rules about brand usage. I hope the board is
> interested in some kind of cleanup. The current brand guidelines are vague
> to some degree.
> Aloha,
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode
> (808) 652-3805
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Paul Ritchie <paul.ritchie at owasp.org> wrote:
> Jim, Josh, all:
> I tend to agree with the "Lets be vigilant & educate the community, rather
> than 'police' the community" approach.
> Noreen Whysel, our new Community Manager, has training, education &
> Community outreach in her area of responsibility.  One training topic could
> easily be "Cool OWASP Marketing tools, and How to Use the OWASP
> Brand/Logo".
> Unless we see a truly blatant case of misuse, I'll be asking Noreen to go
> down the education path first.
> Paul
> Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
> OWASP Interim Executive Director
> paul.ritchie at owasp.org
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:53 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.
>> ~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

Noreen Whysel
nwhysel at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20141118/6f11495f/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list