[Owasp-leaders] OWASP "Certification"

Dennis Groves dennis.groves at owasp.org
Wed Jul 3 17:30:21 UTC 2013

On 3 Jul 2013, at 5:52, Dinis Cruz wrote:

> Dennis you are wrong with your logic. Ironically if we sold the use of 
> the OWASP brand, it would actually increase its abuse, since it would 
> legitimise the bad behaviour.

Dinis, with all due respect, it is you who are actually committing a 
logical fallacy! It is known as the '[slippery 

1) If we sell the use of the brand
2) then increased brand abuse will happen
3) therefore selling the brand must not happen

This sort of reasoning is fallacious because there is no reason to 
believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an 
argument for such a claim.

Because of this fallacy I can easily argue a counter point such as:

"Given with our enormously large watch dog community, and our 
increasingly litigious society, brand abuse would actually decrease if 
we license it because corporations would not want to be sued for brand 
usage violations."

This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the 
strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of 
steps between antecedents, and directly proportional to the causal 
strength of the connections between adjacent steps.

***In any event this entirely misses the point. My hypothesis is: OWASP 
misses numerous ways to capitalise on the community intellectual 
property that we could and should be capturing to further strengthen and 
support OWASP in its mission.***


[Dennis Groves](http://about.me/dennis.groves), MSc
[Email me](mailto:dennis.groves at owasp.org) or [schedule a 

> "Unless someone like you...cares a whole awful lot...nothing is going 
> to get better...It's not." -- The Lorax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130703/216a2e93/attachment.html>

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list