[Owasp-board] 2016 ideas

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Mon Nov 23 13:15:40 UTC 2015


Hi All,

The idea is to finalised working out the items scope for each project. Like
mentioned in the proposal, I think is a good idea to take 3 projects
(Flagship,Lab,Incubator) and workout through a series of items for each one.

>From Jim's experience in defenders library, we can help define clear scopes
and with the project leaders input also, we need to define the most
important issues that will make the libraries weak on protection

A set of steps here

   - Finalise the items within the scope for each project part of the pilot
   - Touch based with the project leaders regarding their availability for
   feedback
   - Deploy a couple of websites (simple ones) that have the
   libraries configured
   - Deploy on a VM server and host a couple of domains for them for the
   researchers to test example:
      - crsfguard.owasp.org
      - xxxx.owasp.org
   - Setup  and configure an account in hackerone.com
   - Setup and configure an account bountysource.com


>From there on is a management of the process, as researchers will submit
issues and we need to re-test them and validate them for this part

   - Researcher submits issue
   - retest and verify the severity (Jim, me , Project leader)
   - feedback with Jim and Project leaders regarding the severity of the
   issue, all reports are available in hacker one as a Hacker/researcher
   submits the issue, if possible more people should retest to confirm the bug
   - determine together if indeed a bug has been confirmed ( Jim,  the
   project leader and me)
   - Once confirmed, log the bug in the projects Github
   - Make the payment to the researcher with approval of 3 members ( Jim,
    the project leader and me)
   - Publicise the bug issue through wiki project page, github issues
   section and eventually if it is high risk, the leader will have to set a
   warning on its Github repository
   - Project leader must provide feedback on his availability with the
   projects volunteers on fixing the issue
   - If this is not fixable or too complex for the leader to fix, we
   attempt a bountysource.com fix
   - If someone fixes the issue through bountysource.com, it must be
   retested and confirmed
   - Can run again in hackerone to verify that specific bug fix after
   deployment (payment amount to be determined)
   - The fix must be merged into the master branch of the repository
   and  incorporated into a new release
   - It project is updated with fix


*Conditions for the participating owasp project:*
Must have an active leader we can feedback with regarding the issues found.
I think this is essential for the completeness of the project's definition
of bugs and later fixes

These are just some draft steps part of the proposal and process, if you
have any advice regarding this, please let us know

regards

Johanna


On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> Thanks Michael and Josh for your astute feedback. Johanna already has a
> decent proposal on the block and I've provided several edits and issues to
> consider.
>
> If you have time, would love to have you both mark up the doc directly
> with your comments and thoughts. :)
>
> Thanks and Aloha,
> --
> Jim Manico
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> https://www.owasp.org
> Join me in Rome for AppSecEU 2016!
>
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Awesome stuff. I've run teams on the receiving end of bug bounties at both
> Mozilla and Twitter. Happy to provide any feedback if helpful. Key items
> are good and fast responses to researchers and actually closing valid
> issues in a timely manner. If we can't commit to those items we'd want to
> reconsider our approach.
>
> On Sunday, November 22, 2015, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> We're working on a proposal and plan right now. More soon.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> Global Board Member
>> OWASP Foundation
>> https://www.owasp.org
>> Join me in Rome for AppSecEU 2016!
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> I like the concept, but have some questions before the Board were to
>> approve something like this:
>>
>>    1. Is there an actual proposal to fund a Bug Bounty?  If so, what is
>>    the dollar amount that the Board would be authorizing here?
>>    2. A bug bounty program is more than just a dollar amount, it's a
>>    process.  Have we created a process for handling any submissions that come
>>    in for bugs?
>>    3. Once you have a submission, are we just throwing it in a database
>>    somewhere or is there an expectation that someone will fix it?  Who is
>>    responsible for that?
>>    4. If the answer to #3 is the project team, then what happens if they
>>    do not fix it in a timely manner?  Is the project demoted?  If the bug is
>>    serious enough, do we halt all downloads of the project until it is fixed?
>>    Do we attempt to warn users?
>>
>> In short, I think it's great to say "We want a bug bounty program like
>> Hackerone", but there are way more details that need to be hashed out
>> here.  I recommend putting together a team to assess how this would work as
>> part of an actual process for OWASP.  I wouldn't be comfortable authorizing
>> any funds until I had that information.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:12 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> To run a programma like hackerone we will need to verify the bugs found
>>> We could start with a pilot For CRSFGuard and Dependency Check projects
>>> I volunteer to manage the programma For these projects
>>> I can set a plan to determine the scope of the program with The project
>>> leaders and make sure we verify the
>>> veracity of the reported bugs
>>>
>>> What does The board need from me in order to approve my proposal?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, November 21, 2015, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "I would say that for the existing Flagship & LABS (libraries or code)
>>>> we should run a program through Hackerone or Bugbounty.(off course insecure
>>>> applications as WebGoat are out of scope ;-))"
>>>>
>>>> Yes. This would generate awareness, generate opportunities for new
>>>> volunteers and put a better control around our prominent code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Coates | @_mwc
>>>> <https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=_mwc>
>>>> OWASP Global Board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 8:34 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
>>>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jim & Board
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Developers come to us'... is indeed a moderate approach. I just
>>>>> finalised a security project reviews developed by very serious companies in
>>>>> EU and it amazes me that they were using CRSFGuard and even ESAPI.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a dependency and the reason why the PHPSEC users were angry
>>>>> at OWASP, they were using the project for some serious development of
>>>>> financial applications and counting on OWASP to secure them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since OWASP cannot offer a QA process review of its own projects, we
>>>>> should be careful here and indeed, the approach to help improve existing
>>>>> frameworks is more realistic and has less risks associated with reputation
>>>>> issues to OWASP image
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say that for the existing Flagship & LABS (libraries or code)
>>>>> we should run a program through Hackerone or Bugbounty.(off course insecure
>>>>> applications as WebGoat are out of scope ;-))
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, maybe the focus should stop in trying to create libraries as
>>>>> Tim said but focus the efforts into working on existing frameworks.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reality is that creating security libraries is VERY hard and it
>>>>> has a lot of consequences for OWASP image if serious issues are found as
>>>>> the case of PHPSEC
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Johanna
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm feeling a bit more clarity on suggesting technical resource hires
>>>>>> for 2016. Paul, these are just ideas to trigger strategic planning
>>>>>> discussions and ideas. I agree that the final decisions around these hires
>>>>>> is "all you".  I hope this email is taken in the spirt of "ideas to
>>>>>> consider".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Wiki experts (previously discussed)
>>>>>> 2) Web design expert (previously discussed)
>>>>>> 3) Technical contractor or bounties to help augment the security of
>>>>>> common software frameworks (big potential here)
>>>>>> 4) Security assurance contractors or bounties to help review OWASP
>>>>>> defensive projects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole "developers, come to us" is only modestly effective.
>>>>>> "Developers, we want to help and go to you" is a much more effective
>>>>>> movement, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking a bit out of box here... If we spent significant funds in
>>>>>> helping improve common software frameworks for security - we could really
>>>>>> have a massive impact on the world at large. I'd love to see serious
>>>>>> investment in this area....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aloha,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jim Manico
>>>>>> Global Board Member
>>>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>>>>> Join me in Rome for AppSecEU 2016!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> --
> Michael Coates | @_mwc <https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=_mwc>
> OWASP Global Board
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151123/865b1f36/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list