[Owasp-board] Jeff soing marketing for Contrast using Benchmark

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Sat Nov 28 13:12:51 UTC 2015


Have you seen the contrast website, PR's and video?

It seems you are defending and trying to minor all the facts around the
abuse of OWASP and DHS brands to sell a message as these organisations are
endorsing Contrast with its superior product.

Since you have never used the tool you have definitely no idea to confirm
that all the claims done on that webiste and PR including marketing
contrast video are false and damaging towards open source and commercial

This is how I see that this kind of projects married with venom marketing
campaigns contribute to very bad reputation of OWASP.

Read all my finding here so yes I have taken time to research

Please read, research how this venom marketing has an impact with their
false claims on the image of other vendors SAST and DAST tools including
Open source tools like FindBugs , ZAP




On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the links to those articles.  The first one discusses the
> strengths and weaknesses of the different methods of evaluating for
> application vulnerabilities.  The section on the Benchmark seems wholly
> appropriate to me.  That seems like an excellent description of what the
> project is designed to do.  I see some metrics in there about which tools
> are more effective on which types of vulnerabilities, but I don't see him
> straight up saying "The OWASP Benchmark proves that Contrast is better".
> This seems like statements made based on some level of testing and
> research.  Honestly, I don't see any OWASP brand abuse in that article.
> Whether it's in good taste or not at this stage in the project is certainly
> debatable, but if you look at the brand usage guidelines (
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Marketing/Resources#tab=BRAND_GUIDELINES),
> I don't see any violations.  We need to govern to policy here which is why
> Paul and Noreen are evaluating changes to the guidelines and our
> enforcement policies to make abuse more difficult.
> The second article is a competing vendor's reaction to the first.  He
> makes some good points about the issues with Benchmark, but he also says
> that he hopes that it will be improved over time, and Dave has committed to
> that.  What I don't see is the vendor saying "...and Veracode has committed
> resources to help make the Benchmark more accurate across all tool sets".
> The Benchmark page is pretty clear that it does it's best to provide a
> benchmark without working exactly like a real-world application.  Maybe
> some more disclaimer text about where the project is at today would be in
> order to validate some of Chris' concerns, but I hardly see this as "brand
> abuse" or a reason to demote the project.
> Please consider that I have spoken with both Dave and Jeff on this topic
> and read much of the discussions around it before formulating my opinion.
> I doubt that you have done the same so I'm not sure how you can claim that
> you have researched the issues and all parties involved when you haven't
> even spoken with the two people whom you are accusing of impropriety.  I
> have no bias here.  I am simply speaking with the individuals involved,
> looking at the currently OWASP policies and guidelines, and helping to
> determine our next steps.
> ~josh
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:08 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Josh, also take the time to read the reaction of Veracode
>> Jeff doing marketing...
>> https://www.veracode.com/blog/2015/09/no-one-technology-silver-bullet
>> This week we’re all treated to watch this spectacle play out in the pages
>> of Dark Reading, loosely disguised as a discussion about a new industry
>> benchmark. While vendors sling arrows at each other, the benchmark itself
>> isn’t getting much attention and I think it would benefit us all to focus
>> on what’s important here: the benchmark
>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Benchmark>.
>> .....
>> f you haven’t been following the drama, over the past few days, the
>> general manager of HP’s Fortify division, Jason Schmitt, and the CTO and
>> Co-founder of Contrast Security, Jeff Williams, have been in a tit-for-tat
>> argument over this question. In a post
>> <http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/why-its-insane-to-trust-static-analysis/a/d-id/1322274?> published
>> yesterday, Williams points to a new benchmark from OWASP as a good way to
>> objectively evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different application
>> security tools.
>> I* have a concern with the OWASP benchmark scoring as well. I don’t
>> agree with the scoring process where the score is true positive rate minus
>> false positives rate (score = TP%-FP%).  It is much more important to be
>> able to detect a vulnerability than to reject a false positive, to a
>> point.  I am going to recommend to OWASP that TP% and FP% be reported and **not combined
>> into a final score.  This way there is more information presented and
>> customers can make up their minds about the FP rate their risk posture and
>> resources can tolerate.  For instance if a test has a TP% of 65% and FP%
>> around 35%, instead of just comparing a score of 30 to compare test results
>> look at both numbers.  That paints a more realistic picture of how a
>> testing technology will perform.*
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:59 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> Josh
>>> Inform yourself better.
>>> Is now Jeff being forced to write articles in DarkReading about
>>> benchmark and Contrast?
>>> http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/why-its-insane-to-trust-static-analysis/a/d-id/1322274
>>> [image: Inline image 2]
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151128/aa6eb58c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot 2015-11-27 13.55.44.png
Type: image/png
Size: 110730 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151128/aa6eb58c/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list