dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Thu Jan 20 16:44:27 EST 2011
I agree with Mike on the need to have a Commercial Registry, the problem is
how we do it and how do we keep 'marketing speak' out of it.
If there is enough interest and energy, this is definitely worth a Summit's
On 20 Jan 2011, at 15:59, Mike Boberski <mike.boberski at gmail.com> wrote:
Put the commercial services registry back to make it easy to shop for paid
People know how to charge for services and run their businesses on their
People don't offer services until consumers ask for them, and for that to
happen they need to know where to look. People are otherwise earning a
living doing things the way they've always done just fine.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
> The comment on the need to have 'commercial support for OWASP project XYZ'
> is absolutely critical for a number of OWASP projects to go to the next
> I have done quite a lot thinking about this, and am trying with the OWASP
> O2 Platform project (that I'm leading) to create a model that others can
> use. See
> http://o2platform.com/wiki/O2_Commercial_Services#O2_Subscriptions for
> more details (if others feel the time is right to talk about this, lets add
> a working session to the Summit and figure out a plan (I have a lot of ideas
> and data to share on this topic)).
> Some OWASP projects that need this type of Commercial Service support ASAP
> are: WebGoat, WebScarab, ESAPI, ZedProxy, Legal Project, OWASP Academies,
> Education Project, OpenSAMM, ASVS, The Guides Trillogy (Testing, Code and
> Developer), etc...
> that the uptake of O2 subscriptions has been quite small, and one of the
> main issues still to be resolved is how should this type of services be
> represented at owasp.org website? This is a reflection of the size of the
> O2 Platform Community and the commitment that it requires from adopting
> companies to use it internally (other OWASP projects should have a much
> easier 'sale')
> OWASP is not set-up to provide this type of services, and in my view,
> should never be. What OWASP needs is a vibrant community of commercial
> companies providing commercial support around OWASP projects, and then let
> the market decide who should get the business.
> Dinis Cruz
> On 19 January 2011 16:30, Jerry Hoff <jerry at jerryhoff.net> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I also had a few questions on this:
>> >>6) ESAPI, CSRFGuard, AntiSamy and other key "builder" projects get
>> full-time technical resources to drive the projects to production
>> quality (in terms of docs, too)
>> Documentation is definitely a good thing, but I think what's really
>> holding back most of these projects from more universal adoption is lack of
>> paid support. I've suggested the use of all three of these libraries above
>> to clients - large clients have one question - can we get paid support?
>> They would not even entertain the idea of using these tools on their
>> critical applications without someone they can call for a fix if the tools
>> mess things up down the road.
>> Of course, they use other open source tools as well (apache, log4j,
>> etc...) - but those projects usually have voluminous documentation and a
>> large community of developers and users. We have dedicated developers
>> working on this (for Java ESAPI at least - some of the other ESAPIs seem a
>> bit abandoned...) , and we have a mailing list for ESAPI, but for many large
>> corporations, that's not going to be enough. They want paid support, which
>> is not something owasp can offer, i believe.
>> If OWASP was going to invest in full timers, I think it would be more
>> beneficial to have technical writers buffing out articles (a noticeable
>> percentage of articles have quite a few TBDs, and the developer's guide 2.0
>> - a cornerstone project - apparently hasn't been updated since March 25,
>> 2010 (according to the it's Google Code repository:
>> http://code.google.com/p/owasp-development-guide/wiki/Guide - apologies
>> if it's being updated offline). That puppy should be updated weekly to
>> reflect the ever growing repository of collective appsec knowledge.
>> So more than tools - people come to OWASP for guidance - and the
>> documented guidance should be in better shape. That's how you'll win more
>> hearts and minds.
>> Jerry Hoff
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:51 PM, James McGovern <JMcGovern at virtusa.com>wrote:
>>> A few questions/thoughts
>>> 1. If OWASP increases the amount of full-time employees in order to
>>> support projects, how much more dollars would we have to take in on an
>>> annual basis?
>>> 2. Since OWASP is incorporated in the United States, would there be
>>> extra challenges in having employees who aren't US authorized workers?
>>> 3. Why would we limit our thinking to just technical staff? I am of the
>>> belief that it would be actually better to have dedicated PR in order to
>>> help spread the word as first course of action
>>> James McGovern
>>> Virtusa Corporation
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
>>> [mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Jim Manico
>>> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 9:45 PM
>>> To: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>> Subject: [Owasp-leaders] Solutions
>>> I received a few off-list emails in support of some of my last few
>>> emails to the leaders list. However...
>>> I really need to stop my OWASP-attacking emails, especially when
>>> I'm not presenting clear solutions.
>>> So I would like to take a moment to share my future vision of OWASP with
>>> you. This is just one mans subjective opinion. I hope this is good
>>> "grist for the mill" in prep for the summit.
>>> 1) OWASP Board focuses primarily on fundraising
>>> 2) We hire new full time technical staff members working for OWASP
>>> 3) We have a smaller number of projects with a higher level of
>>> commitment to production quality (Focus, Daniel-san)
>>> 4) Quarterly updates of key standard-based projects (ASVS and other
>>> OWASP emerging standards)
>>> 5) New website with clear paths for Developers, Assessment Specialists,
>>> and Managers (Under way)
>>> 6) ESAPI, CSRFGuard, AntiSamy and other key "builder" projects get
>>> full-time technical resources to drive the projects to production
>>> quality (in terms of docs, too)
>>> 7) OWASP releases objective tool studies on a bi-yearly basis. I think
>>> we are well situated to provide advice and analysis (as well as real
>>> metrics) on the capabilities of different SAST/DAST products (if we had
>>> full time dedicated resources)
>>> Please note, I hope to achieve "eccentric millionaire" status in a few
>>> years so I can help fund all of this. I have the "eccentric" part down.
>>> I'm working on the other half now. :)
>>> Cheers all. Looking forward to seeing you at the summit in Portugal.
>>> - Jim
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>> Virtusa was recently ranked and featured in 2010 Deloitte Technology Fast
>>> 500, 2010 Global Services 100, IAOP's 2010 Global Outsourcing 100 sub-list
>>> and 2010 FinTech 100 among others.
>>> This message, including any attachments, contains confidential
>>> information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is intended
>>> for the addressee only. Any unauthorized disclosure, use, dissemination,
>>> copying, or distribution of this message or any of its attachments or the
>>> information contained in this e-mail, or the taking of any action based on
>>> it, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>>> notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message.
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
OWASP-Leaders mailing list
OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders