[Owasp-leaders] jowasp.org

psiinon psiinon at gmail.com
Thu Aug 28 07:55:45 UTC 2014

I agree with most of your points, but not "All sites must be hosted within
OWASP’s infrastructure (so OWASP has all the assets, and backups)"
I think that restriction is unreasonable and will restrict innovation.
Why shouldnt projects use EC2, GitHub pages or whatever?
A requirement for backups to be available to OWASP is perfectly acceptable.

I'm pretty sure there is already a significant amount of project related
OWASP documentation that is only available via GitHub, SourceForge, Google
Code etc.
Most of the ZAP wiki is on Google Code, so I think the cats out of the bag
for that one already ;)

Yes, micro sites are likely to be restricted to 'rich' projects / chapters.
But hopefully the fact that they have the money and desire to do this is an
indication that they are well used / supported by the community.

In the case of flagship tools I think we need micro sites in order to
compete effectively against commercial alternatives.
http://www.opensamm.org/ is a great example of this.



On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Colin Watson <colin.watson at owasp.org>

> Jim etc
> A great idea. But it can't be a free-for-all, as decisions here impact on:
> 1. other volunteers
> 2. administrative resources
> 3. the security of www.owasp.org
> 4. the reputation of OWASP Foundation
> Names
> ----------
> Firstly, it sounds like these microsites might relate to:
> - language (e.g. Java)
> - framework (e.g. dotnet)
> - project (e.g. proactive)
> - role (e.g. defenders)
> - initiative (e.g. government)
> - chapter (e.g. nyc)
> - region (e.g. asia)
> - topic (e.g. risk/vulnerability)
> Focusing on just say the language idea, if there is java. but not
> php., what does that indicate to outsiders?
> Focusing on  projects. If a project has a microsite, does that
> undermine all the projects that don’t? It appears from other posts to
> this list that many projects are either empty shells or not
> maintained. There needs to be some threshold for volunteers to apply
> for the right to have a subdomain, and their other
> project(s)/contributions must already meet a certain high standard
> (quality, freshness, support).
> Focusing on a risk/vulnerability, why should xss.owasp.org exist but
> not csrf.owasp.org for example, or should the latter be
> xsrf.owasp.org? Who decides what will be okay?
> Is there a danger that only "rich" leaders/chapters will be able to
> create these microsites, if “pro design” and “SSL certificate” have to
> be acquired?
> There will be a lot more new OWASP support overhead for these
> microsites such as approving them ,setting up the DNS records,
> managing access, maintaining assets, and periodic review.
> A final question on subdomains, how does the wiki deal with other
> languages? I believe Spanish exists. Are there any subdomains already
> allocated?
> Not a free-for-all
> -----------------------
> So, some initial discussion ideas for ground rules:
> a) All sub-domain DNS will be managed by OWASP (of course)
> b) No new domain names must be registered (to prevent sprawl, lack of
> control and brand damage)
> c) All sites must be hosted within OWASP’s infrastructure (so OWASP
> has all the assets, and backups)
> d) All root/admin access credentials must be held and controlled by
> OWASP, not any project leader or other person (so that OWASP can
> transfer ownership to another lerader, or take thje site down if not
> maintained, or is contrary to any principle)
> e) Must conform to OWASP’s domain-level policies (e.g. RIA, HSTS?).
> What content/includes will be allowed or not. Some might well
> undermine the security of the main website.
> f ) Must be SSL-only
> g) No sponsorship/advertising at all (because that is occurring on a
> tab of the project page).
> h) Must not contravene OWASP’s principles and ethics, or any governance
> rules
> i) Must not have any? vulnerabilities!
> j) Must use 2FA for administrative access for all non-public access
> k) Must support multilingual capabilities
> l) Microsites will be culled if not updated within any rolling period
> of (say) 180days.
> m) Content must be relevant, accurate, timely and be well written
> n) Vendor neutral
> o) (your suggestions)
> Colin
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders

OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20140828/c2a7800d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list