[Owasp-board] Time to review

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Sat Feb 20 18:14:59 UTC 2016

>>I trust those involved will make a good decision here.

>>First, the current proposal *does not include the triage, reproduction,
and remediation piece* (the Bugcrowd one does).  After speaking with them
about this, they explained that it is because there is additional costs
involved with that because they partner with other companies to provide
that service.  That said, they offered to talk to one of their partners and
had a strong belief that they could offer this to us as well.

Hi Jim.

I'm all in favour of vendor neutrality at all times.I admire your
pro-activeness in these matters, however, at this point, I'm out of this
equation regarding any decisions of a bounty program and management of it
in the future.

One of the major problems we have, is to create sustainable initiatives.
I'm a volunteer with limited time. My availability will vary a lot and this
is common for volunteers.

I think is important that we ask ourselves who will be accountable for the
system we bring in and able to manage this continuously. Volunteer based,
I'm not convinced.

Wiki and Reviews have shown that volunteer based does not work. Therefore,
I prefer to abstain to participate on this bounty initiative because my
workload has multiplied by the dozen, and as a volunteer, I cannot provide
any guarantees of my availability in the future.

This counts for the review process. This is the reason why we,  Enrico and
I, proposed to decentralise and focus on a platform. Even so, this platform
is highly dependable on volunteers. So far, only 6 members have voted for
Graduation of the OWASP security project.We lack participation. I feel like
no one cares. Or people just don't want to participate in this kind of
thing.I have no freaking idea.

So far, there has not been any reviewers that have worked on reviews since
we restarted this initiative.Even before, when Claudia start offering
amazon cards in exchange for reviews, only 2 persons participated for 2
reviews one different projects. We keep on looking, I believe Claudia has
contact them, but in the end, nothing.

 I took many hours to build that criteria and let people comment and
collaborate, so we make this process easier. There has been some
participation , but from very few. We provide the community with all the
opportunities to participate but still, there is a lack of interested in
this subject.

I spoke with Jason Li, and even on an interview you did to him in 2008, he
had the same idea of providing a platform for participation, but people
don't want to volunteer to for these kind of tasks, just as happens with
the wiki.

Furthermore, you end as a solo-player, nobody gives you thanks, when all
you are trying to do is help, burning your free time chasing
waterfalls.(Thats counts for you with the wiki editing of +8000 pages, I
guess all you hear is criticism just as I do, and people just tends to
forget we are not OWASP staff, we are volunteers)

I think is time that, from the operational management point of view, to
revise all these actions and have a very serious talk about this.

   - Are they sustainable only volunteer based?
   - What has the experience shown?
   - Why does owasp lack volunteers to help on these tasks?
   - Is the workload to big to expect volunteers to do this?
   - Is this a community that has not time to do this kind of work?
   - Do they actually want to do these kind of tasks?

Volunteers are volunteers, they are not workforce nor can you expect the
same output.You cannot expect anything from them.

A volunteer must feel he gains something back for giving his time. If there
is no exchange on this part, if he does not feel valued or that his work
matters,  or enjoys what he does, then , I think , volunteer work stops.
For me , it must have a meaning, that what I do , matters.

Whatever the reason , the effect is, volunteered based initiatives as wiki,
reviews and possibly Bounty program, does not seem to work.

We should evaluate this before we keep bringing systems that cannot be
volunteered-based sustained.



On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> Josh,
> I am grateful you took the time to hear other bounty vendors out,
> especially since I forced your hand to do so to some degree.
> I trust those involved will make a good decision here.
> I do not have a charge over this and do not want to interfere, but if you
> want my assistance just ask.
> Aloha,
> Jim
> On 2/19/16 4:07 PM, Josh Sokol wrote:
> I went ahead and spoke with HackerOne this afternoon even though others
> were unable to make it.  I'm going to be mostly out-of-pocket over the next
> couple of weeks, but at least wanted to be informed.  I took some notes,
> included below, but had a couple of things that are worth mentioning here.
> First, the current proposal does not include the triage, reproduction, and
> remediation piece (the Bugcrowd one does).  After speaking with them about
> this, they explained that it is because there is additional costs involved
> with that because they partner with other companies to provide that
> service.  That said, they offered to talk to one of their partners and had
> a strong belief that they could offer this to us as well.  With that, I
> think that what they are offering is pretty much equivalent to what
> Bugcrowd is offering.  That said, the ask is **VERY** different.  While
> Bugcrowd is looking for an OWASP Platinum sponsorship package in exchange
> for their services, HackerOne is literally asking for nothing.  They said
> that they are big supporters of the OWASP Foundation and what we stand for
> and want to do this to help us out.  I was not expecting this, but am
> extremely happy with what I heard from them.  We haven't talked to Cobalt
> yet, but my gut at this point is that HackerOne would make for a great
> partner on this and I would recommend, if we were to accept their offer,
> providing them with a logo placement on the supporter page (as a minimum)
> as a token of our appreciation.
> So, I realize that we still have one more vendor to talk to, but HackerOne
> looks really good.  With Johanna out-of-pocket for the foreseeable future,
> I wanted to make a recommendation to pull Simon Bennetts (if he is willing)
> into this evaluation process.  I think that a bug bounty program would be
> of huge benefit to his efforts, and would like to get his impression of the
> value of such a tool for his project.  Simon, would you be willing to hop
> on a call with the HackerOne folks to take a look at their platform?  Or,
> if you'd prefer, we have access to the platform already and can get you an
> account to poke around with on your own.
> In any case, notes are below.  Have a great weekend!
> ~josh
> *Your Platform:*
>    - Workflow & Automation: Focused on engineering the world's most
>    advanced vulnerability coordination platform.
>    - Signal: Numerous systems, such as Reputation and hackbot, dedicated
>    to ensuring high signal programs.
>    - Transparent: All hackers have a profile, history and reputation.
>    Advanced public disclosure workflow when needed.
> *You are in Control:*
>    - Flexible: Run private or public programs, with or without bounties,
>    managed or unmanaged.
>    - Ownership: You own your data.  HackerOne makes no claims on
>    Vulnerability Information.
>    - Multiparty Coordination: Easily pull in other vendors or external
>    parties into a case.
> *Service Donation:*
>    - Waive bounty service fees
>    - Donate HackerOne Enterprise and a dedicated success manager for min
>    2 years.
> FREE Program
>    - [email protected] Workflow
>    - Hacker Reputation
>    - Intelligent Duplication Detection
>    - Automation
>    - Issue Tracker Integration
>    - Analytics Dashboard
> PROFESSIONAL Program ($2k/mo)
>    - Everything in Free
>    - Advanced Hacker Matching
>    - Performance Benchmarking
>    - Launch & Optimization Guidance
>    - Report Mediation
>    - Reports API
>    - Everything in Professional
>    - Dedicated Success Manager
>    - Custom Analytics & Reporting
>    - Custom Integrations
>    - Custom Branding Theme
>    - Communications Guidance
> ADD ON: Bug Bounty Global Payments (Included in our deal)
> ADD ON: HackerOne Managed - Triage, Reproduction & Remediation Guidance
> (Not included today in the proposal.  Implemented by partners.  Need to
> negotiate this.)
>    - Would propose to have a separate instance for each project + OWASP
>    Foundation resources
>    - Do not want anything in return.  Support the OWASP Foundation and
>    what we are doing.
>    - Have a built in leaderboard sortable by timeframe
>    - Ranks hackers based on "signal" and "impact"
>    - Have an integration with Salesforce ticketing
>    - Support a wide range of common disclosure scenarios such as "public
>    disclosure".  By default they are confidential.

Johanna Curiel
OWASP Volunteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20160220/20cd061f/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list