[Owasp-leaders] [OWASP ASVS] Obfuscation?
yvanboily at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 20:57:59 UTC 2014
It would have been out of line if I had posted this line of inquiry back to
the individual project threads. I changed the venue for these comments to
the leaders list and the governance team. I also added the board to this
Bottom line, the board has not acted to protect the community from someone
who has regularly posted abusive messages, and has persisted in doing so
since the complaint was filed. I don't really care whether his content is
technically valid, I care about the harm that allowing known bad actors to
continue to participate at the expense of others.
I don't know him either, and I am not personally invested in the outcome of
the decision that the board makes regarding Christian; I am personally
invested in knowing whether or not OWASP is willing to following it's own
rules. If the board is failing to enforce the code of ethics, then this is
an issue for the leaders and the governance team. OWASP contributors
deserve better than this.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Steven van der Baan <
steven.van.der.baan at owasp.org> wrote:
> as far as I'm aware there has been no announcement that he should be
> blocked and to be honest I find this question out of place here.
> No, I'm no friend of mr Heinrich. No, I do not know him. Yes, I realise
> that he can be quite a handful, but I firmly believe that this type of
> questions should not be expressed as open and on multiple lists like you
> have done.
> Kind regards,
> Steven van der Baan.
> On 06/11/14 18:11, Yvan Boily wrote:
> Regardless of the content, Christian is supposed to have been blocked
> from participation in OWASP. Has there been a change here?
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Bev Corwin <bev.corwin at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Sharing FYI:
>> Reliance on Hardening, Not Obfuscation
>> Hiding code does not prevent attacks—and it it foolish to assume that it
>> does. Open Source development practices rely on actually hardening (or
>> improving the security of) code by making it available for peers to test
>> and try to break, and then fixing the problems found.
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Christian Heinrich <
>> christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Andrew van der Stock
>>> <vanderaj at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> > I am ashamed to say when reviewing the ASVS 2.0, I totally missed the
>>> > inclusion of V17.11, which is a Level 3 control for requiring
>>> > obfuscation. Was this included because it was in the Mobile Top 10
>>> > 2014?
>>> The benefit of obfuscation is that the auditor has to be much higher
>>> skilled than the "middle of the bell curve", who just copy a paste a
>>> report from their SAST product.
>>> This cost should be absorbed by the client since the auditor is
>>> required to undertaken additional work.
>>> In addition, obfuscation also minimises the loss of Intellectual
>>> property if the auditor misplaces the source code because the "[wo]man
>>> on the street" isn't going to be able to understand it or know what it
>>> is without some investment.
>>> I vote not to have obfuscation removed from ASVS, but reworded (in the
>>> next ASVS release) to include the additional clarification from the
>>> next release of the Mobile Top 10.
>>> Christian Heinrich
>>> Owasp-application-security-verification-standard mailing list
>>> Owasp-application-security-verification-standard at lists.owasp.org
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> OWASP-Leaders mailing listOWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders