[Owasp-board] Petition budget for OWASP Bug Bounty 2016-2017

Eoin Keary eoin.keary at owasp.org
Fri Nov 11 19:17:05 UTC 2016


Amen, Matt,

The unspent amount increases year on year and helps no one but the bankers :)
This is a failing of the foundation. You need to take risks and spend a little to achieve results. Loosen the purse strings, rewrite the rules if needs be and spend any un pledged funds on putting a small dent in the universe!


Eoin Keary
OWASP Volunteer
@eoinkeary



> On 11 Nov 2016, at 17:26, Matt Tesauro <matt.tesauro at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
> I've written this email in my head about 5 times - at this point, I might as well spill some digital ink and get these thoughts out of my head.
> 
> <rant>
> 
> 21, yeah that's right, 21 emails to request funds that represent a tiny fraction of the funds that OWASP has to budget for next year. 
> 
> In 2016, OWASP budgeted $136K for project outreach. If we do the same for 2017, and restrict this request to just that pool of funds, this represents a mere 1.4705882% of that budget.
> 
> 21 emails for 1.4% of a single budget category - 0.09% of the 2016 Net Income for the Foundation [*]
> 
> And this isn't some relatively unknown project, its by far one of our most popular and best known projects (hard to say for sure but its easily in the top 3).  Its also crazy mature and doing what I wish all OWASP projects could do - having the lead paid to make the project better while bringing on many, many additional contributors, reaching out to devs, etc.
> 
> If one of our rock star projects has to deal with a 21 email thread to get $2,000 allocated in the 2017 budget something is very broken.
> 
> I'm not going to list this as a plus when I try to recruit new projects to OWASP.
> 
> @ the donation score board (worst name ever) and unspent funds, I'd like to provide a different perspective
> 
> Total unspent chapter funds: 758,789.51
> Total unspent project funds:  75,735.54
> 
> So let be realistic when we talk about unspent funds - there's over 10 times, let me say that again 
>   10 times  10 times  10 times  10 times  10 times  10 times  10 times  10 times  10 times  10 times
> the amount of unspent chapter funds vs project funds.
> 
> If I were bleeding 10 times more from one wound over the other, guess where I'd apply pressure.
> 
> Let look at the top 5 largest unspent budgets:
>               #1       #2       #3       #4      #5      Total of 1 to 5
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chapter  | 123,421 | 54,515 | 49,726 | 32,146 | 32,146 | 291,954 |
> Projects |  18,972 |  8,373 |  4,939 |  4,116 |  4,000 |  40,400 | 
> Percent    |       15%      |       15%     |       10%    |       13%    |        12%    |       14%      |
> of Project vs Chapter
> 
> More fun facts:
> Chapter with 3 or more digits of unspent funds ($1,000+): 74 
> Projects with 3 or more digits of unspent funds ($1,000+): 13 
> 
> So, in a time where part my job as a full-time OWASP staff is to prepare and budget for 2017 to try to make projects better, I think it time I become a strong and vocal advocate for Projects at OWASP.
> 
> I think Chapters are great - I'm involved in 2 of them in Texas - but Chapters don't seem to need a vocal advocate.  Plus, if you think Projects are of equal importance to Chapters at OWASP, we have to seriously reallocate funds in 2017 to get them on equal footing.
> 
> So, for the Project leaders at OWASP, I'm with you and want to make Projects a great home for your awesome work.  Please let me know what isn't working for you and I'll do everything I can to get your interests represented in the 2017 budget and beyond.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> </rant>
> 
> --
> -- Matt Tesauro 
> OWASP AppSec Pipeline Lead
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_AppSec_Pipeline 
> OWASP WTE Project Lead
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Web_Testing_Environment_Project
> http://AppSecLive.org - Community and Download site
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:18 AM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>> >>That means that the next question in my mind is does this have to happen now or can we work this into the 2017 OWASP Foundation budget? 
>> 
>> As the email title suggest, yes is a budget for 2017. Zap will be using already part of their funds for their Bounty and we want to set an additional USD2,000- for 2017 for ZAP as also for other  projects, which have 0 budget.
>> 
>> We could indeed conclude that if a project has funds but has allocated them already, setting a budget for supporting Flagship projects for the bounty should be part of the support OWASP provides to top projects. To be discussed next meeting hopefully
>> 
>> @Seba: Chapters need to come with clear plans on how they will spend their funds or support relocation for other purposes. The fact is that Chapters hosting appsec conferences have a great why to generate substantial funds opposite to projects. 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> my hope is that we channel a big chunk of unused project/chapter funds into the upcoming summit
>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Owasp-DevSecCon-Summit
>>> 
>>> Seba
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:48 PM psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I should point out that I completely agree with the push to make sure that chapters and projects actually use their funds.
>>>> I'm planning on releasing a statement at the end of this year giving an overview of what we've spent ZAP project money on in 2016 and to give an idea of how we plan to allocate our funds for 2017.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> Nobody is saying that Simon/ZAP has to beg for funds.  What I am saying is that this is currently unbudgeted money and it has to come from somewhere.  Right now, the pool of "empowered funds" (ie. the ones these projects can spend on the mission without asking the Foundation) is their account balance.  If they can't or don't want to use those funds, that is fine, but two things need to happen:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) There needs to be justification as to why they can't or don't want to use their funds.
>>>> 
>>>> 2) The OWASP Foundation budget is supposed to be a net neutral every year.  That means that in order to fund this now, something else will not receive funds that were allocated.
>>>> 
>>>> So, let's start over here.  Simon has now provided #1 (haven't heard this yet from the other projects) which sounds reasonable to me.  That means that the next question in my mind is does this have to happen now or can we work this into the 2017 OWASP Foundation budget?  If now, then something else has to get shorted and we need to figure out what that will be.  If 2017, well, we're working on those numbers now so send it to Andrew and we can try to make it happen.  That's not a promise that it will happen as I know he sent an email the other day saying that the numbers are tight, but we can try.
>>>> 
>>>> ~josh
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:53 AM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> @Simon:
>>>> Rest assure that one of the reasons I joined the board was to change this
>>>> 
>>>> @Josh
>>>> We cannot expect that top project like ZAP has to go into $0 budget to beg for funds. I don't think this is a respectful treatment for projects of this caliber and category, A project that has done so much for the OWASP image and spreading our mission.
>>>> 
>>>> There are other ways we can provide support that works for the projects own planning and financial support from OWASP without creating unused funds.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll put this issue on the next OWASP board agenda
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Johanna
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, we do have sufficient fiunds in the ZAP budget. This is why we are the first OWASP project to offer a bug bounty paid for from our funds.
>>>> But these funds _are_ being used.
>>>> We have:
>>>> Paid a technical auther to rewrite the ZAP Getting Started Guide
>>>> Commissioned the same author to rewrite the ZAP alerts to make them more developer friendly
>>>> Set up a bounty for passive scan unit tests: http://zaproxy.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/announcing-zap-unit-test-bounties.html
>>>> Reserved money for active scan unit tests
>>>> Reserved over $5000 for specific changes that we are paying to be developed right now
>>>> Reservered $2000 for the bug bounty
>>>> That means that most of our funds are allocated, and thats why I suggested OWASP could _contribute_ to the bug bounties in order to increase the amount would be able to pay out.
>>>> 
>>>> But OWASP (as an organisation) hasnt really helped ZAP (or other projects) that much historically, so why should it now?
>>>> 
>>>> In case you hadnt noticed I have stepped back my involvement in OWASP and have just been concentrating on ZAP. The lack of support for projects is one of the reasons why. I'll now go back to lurking.
>>>> 
>>>> Yours disappointedly (but not surprised),
>>>> 
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> ZAP currently has $8,373.11 in funds.  Why would the Foundation put up the money when ZAP has more than enough currently to cover its bounties?
>>>> 
>>>> Java Encoder and Java Sanitizer each have $500.  Can we start with that and see if we need more funds after that?  Keep in mind that the $500 was a grant from the Foundation to empower these projects to do things exactly like this.  Why would they not be spending it?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see CSRFGuard in the donation scoreboard which likely means that they don't have any funds.  That also likely means that they don't have at least two active leaders or else they would have received the $500 stipend.
>>>> 
>>>> ~josh
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:31 PM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Bil
>>>> 
>>>> >>What are the proposed bounty amounts?  
>>>> >>Who decides which bugs qualify and how much is paid?  What happens when the $6k runs out?
>>>> 
>>>> That mostly depends on the type of Bug. For example ZAP team can decide how much they will pay for a certain bug. Each bug can be classified from low to High, being high the highest you can pay, but the amount can be defined by ourselves
>>>> 
>>>> Example
>>>> 
>>>> Low ==>USD50
>>>> medium==> USD 100
>>>> High==> USD 500
>>>> 
>>>> First come first served. The first one to report gets the prize.Old bugs do not count.
>>>> 
>>>> If we run out of budget this year we can:
>>>> Make a new request or 
>>>> we go back to Kudos ;-P . 
>>>> 
>>>> It can also happen that no-one finds anything and the money will be reserved until it is. 
>>>> 
>>>> >>And to gauge the flow of funds, pretend you had been paying a bounty, how much would you have paid so far on the already-received bugs?
>>>> 
>>>> Nothing, since the program at that moment was running on Kudos. The bug hunters receive Points that help their ranking, that was the initial motivation but many do not just do it for these purpose but financially. 
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Johanna
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:35 PM, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Oh, and I dont think that any of the previously reported bugs would qualify for the bounty.
>>>> 
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:31 PM, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> At the moment I believe it is only ZAP that is paying any money out.
>>>> The change to pay out money has only just been made today so we have not paid anything out yet.
>>>> We will pay $1000 for (just) RCE vulnerabilities in ZAP. There are various exclusions as detailed on https://bugcrowd.com/owaspzap
>>>> The final decision will be made by the ZAP team in conjunction with bugcrowd.
>>>> We are planning on paying for any bounties from the ZAP project funds, although obviously any help from OWASP would be appreciated :)
>>>> If we receive so many valid submissions that we run out of project funds then we will either need to raise more funds or change the program to reduce / remove the bounty.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Bil Corry <bil.corry at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> What are the proposed bounty amounts?  Who decides which bugs qualify and how much is paid?  What happens when the $6k runs out?
>>>> 
>>>> And to gauge the flow of funds, pretend you had been paying a bounty, how much would you have paid so far on the already-received bugs?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - Bil
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:22 AM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> Dear Board,
>>>> 
>>>> So far the bug bounty is running since May , and I believe one of the projects that have benefit most from this program is ZAP. 
>>>> 
>>>> Others projects which are less popular have not received many submissions, still valuable feedback. 
>>>> 
>>>> So far it is clear that for bug hunters to spent time on this there must be a financial gain, not just kudos. Zap has recently launched monetary bounties from their own project budget (USD 1000).
>>>> 
>>>> My request is to have a Budget of USD 6000 for the Bounty as a support for projects that are working proactively in their security. ZAP is sure leading by example and with this budget, we can have the existing participating projects   being challenged by this
>>>> 
>>>> For the budget , it will be break down as follows
>>>> ZAP==>USD 2000
>>>> Java Encoder==>USD1000
>>>> Java Sanitizer==> USD 1000
>>>> CRSFGuard==>USD 1000
>>>> Any new project that wants to participate==>USD 1000
>>>> We can discuss this during the next OWASP meeting
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> Johanna
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 ZAP Project leader
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> OWASP ZAP Project leader
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Johanna Curiel 
>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> OWASP ZAP Project leader
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Johanna Curiel 
>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> OWASP ZAP Project leader
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Johanna Curiel 
>> OWASP Volunteer
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20161111/8e528a4a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list