[Owasp-board] Time to review

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sun Feb 21 00:50:29 UTC 2016


 > I don't think you have read properly what I'm trying to say, which 
is, that these activities, where there seems to be a need for 
operational support, such as reviewing or wiki editing , does not have 
enough traction from volunteer efforts and therefore not sustainable. 
Many talk cheap and in the end, not enough people toy backup operations.

Right. Wiki could use more help, but the Bug Bounty proposals include 
significant *vendor* support. I think that will work well.

 > If you consider the wiki a success, (with XSS fiasco included) then 
you have not read the responses people provided on the survey I did 
where 50 members of our community responded.Have you read what they say?

Fiasco? We found and fixed bugs. That's good. The world keeps on 
spinning. Yes, I know of the complains from the 50 folks in your survey, 
and I agree with those concerns. But you must have missed the many 
*millions* of page hits on *several*  wiki pages and other documentation 
projects...

Johanna, I do not know why you keep targeting me in these emails. I am 
just one board member - one that you apparently do not like or have 
respect for. Maybe consider talking to other board members if you are 
not happy with my actions. In the meantime, I am going to do a little 
wiki work tonight.

If you have sustainable ideas for these programs, by all means lets hear 
them. If there are things you need me to read, let me know. I am doing 
my best in my limited time as a volunteer.

Aloha,
- Jim


On 2/20/16 6:43 PM, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
> >>I am very confused. *No one asked you to do any work here, am I mistaken? *
>
> Exactly, /_thank you for making that clear._/
>
> I don't think you have read properly what I'm trying to say, which is, 
> that these activities, where there seems to be a need for operational 
> support, such as reviewing or wiki editing , does not have enough 
> traction from volunteer efforts and therefore not sustainable. Many 
> talk cheap and in the end, not enough people toy backup operations.
>
> If you consider the wiki a success, (with XSS fiasco included) then 
> you have not read the responses people provided on the survey I did 
> where 50 members of our community responded.Have you read what they say?
>
> I'm looking for a discussion around solutions and creating initiatives 
> that are sustainable.
>
> Once again Jim, thank you for making it very clear to me how you think.
>
>  I was expecting a some discussions around sustainability.
>
> Cheers
>
> Johanna
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org 
> <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>     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
>>>
>>>           * [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
>>>
>>>         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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Johanna Curiel
> OWASP Volunteer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20160220/e9085ab1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list