[Owasp-board] Time to review

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sun Feb 21 00:29:36 UTC 2016


Joanna,

All I asked is that we give other vendors a chance to propose a bug 
bounty program instead of just choosing one vendor. I am not "the 
decider" here. I did not initiate the bug bounty program nor do I 
disagree with all of your comments below. I am sure we will face several 
challenges. I still think it's a good idea to try and I'm grateful Josh 
is taking a leadership position here.

 > I'm out of this equation regarding any decisions of a bounty program 
and management of it in the future.

For someone who is "out of the equation" you sure have a lot to say! No 
one is asking you to do - any work. You are a volunteer (like me) and 
you do as you like when you feel like it and that is ok.

 > Wiki have shown that volunteer based does not work.

I strongly disagree. I know the wiki is tough for some to read, and it 
needs work, but several pages have received millions of hits and have 
helped many on several issues. I know the wiki needs work, but I am 
proud of the accomplishments of the thousands of volunteers who have 
contributed to that knowledge base in some way.

 > 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.

I am very confused. No one asked you to do any work here, am I mistaken? 
I do not understand why you are upset or are abstaining in something 
that I did not even know you were a part of. I just recall you (and 
Josh) getting very upset that I even suggested we look at other vendor 
proposals.... First you suggest we get a specific vendor for an OWASP 
bug bounty program, then you get upset that I suggested we discuss this 
with other vendors, and now you abstaining. It's hard for me to follow 
what you want here. I have watched you email the world about "taking on 
an initiative" and then quit several times now, that I am having a lot 
of trouble following your work and needs. And I have done this a few 
times myself, I'm not perfect. But I do keep trying.

 > 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.

Johanna, if you are not satisfied with your volunteer activities, then I 
suggest you find another way to lend support at OWASP (there are many 
many things going on with application security) or *take a break and 
take some time off*. OWASP is not supposed to get your angry or make you 
feel unsatisfied.  It's Saturday night and I'm stuck in Chicago so I'm 
going to work on a few wiki tasks on my plate because that gives me a 
lot of satisfaction - even in the face of other folks, like yourself, 
who do not see the value in the wiki. I do - so I'm going to keep at it.

 > 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)

Yea, I think that if you join OWASP because you want "thanks" - you're 
in it for the wrong reason. Johanna, I have seen folks give you MANY 
compliments - over and over and over - on big public lists - from folks 
all over the world - and it does not seem to be enough for you, so I do 
not know what to tell you. I do the work I do at OWASP because I believe 
it in and find the value in it. I don't want thanks - I actually dislike 
getting public thanks - I just want more volunteers involved. And I find 
that leading by example helps. There are quite a few folks working on 
the wiki with me. I am super grateful for them all. Generating new 
content is not an issue, dealing with older content is.

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

This is a fair point regarding the bug bounty program. Please keep in 
mind that several of the bounty programs proposed would be vendor 
driven, not volunteer driven. It's not decided yet nor is it my call (or 
even charge). This thread started because I asked to be vendor neutral, 
and if this was to start over I'd do the same.

Have a nice Saturday night. I'm off to work on the Java wiki page and do 
a little cleanup.

Aloha,
- Jim

On 2/20/16 11:14 AM, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
> >>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.
>
> Cheers
>
> Johanna
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org 
> <mailto: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
>>
>>       * Security@ 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
>>
>>     ENTERPRISE Program:
>>
>>       * 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/20160220/7f3835c8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list