[Owasp-topten] [Owasp-leaders] Released: OWASP Top 10 – 2017 Release Candidate

Neil Smithline neil.smithline at owasp.org
Thu Apr 27 13:46:24 UTC 2017


My recollection of the process is that there was a call for data
<http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2016-May/016625.html> for
the T10 that was sent out May 21, _2016_. The deadline for responses was
July 2016. Some vendors replied, others didn't.

Neil

[My first email bounced due to length so I had to trim the replies and
resend. Sorry if you got a duplicate.]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Ryan <tom.ryan at providesecurity.com>
wrote:

> Hi Norm,
>
>
>
> I whole heartedly believe in vendor neutrality. The reason why I brought
> up vendor names (Fortify, IBM, CheckMarx, etc) is because of the massive
> datasets they have. I’m sure we can have an additional 3-5M Data points
> added if we got more companies and a representative from each involved.
>
> How are we supposed to say this is a TOP 10 with the equivalent dataset of
> one large bank (53K)? Not to mention the complexity of the different way
> datasets are derived, including taking into account the limitations of each
> data set?
>
>
>
> Once we have a broad enough dataset (much larger then 53K) , we reach out
> to Joan Goodchild of CSO, and Kelly Jackson Higgins of Dark Reading for
> publication about OWASP TOP 10 Open For Comment By Industry Leaders (Not
> OWASP)
>
> I think that would be powerful Information to have. Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Have an amazing day!
>
>
>
> Thomas Ryan
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/tommyryan/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Norman Yue [mailto:norman.yue at owasp.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:23 AM
> *To:* Thomas Ryan <tom.ryan at providesecurity.com>
> *Cc:* Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>; Dave Wichers <
> dave.wichers at owasp.org>; OWASP Leaders <owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org>;
> OWASP TopTen <owasp-topten at lists.owasp.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Owasp-leaders] Released: OWASP Top 10 – 2017 Release
> Candidate
>
>
>
> Hey folks,
>
>
>
> I'd like to echo Tom's comment - vendor neutrally, I don't think this is
> even about which vendors get to contribute data and drive the development
> of what is widely considered a vendor-neutral best practice standard.
> Actually, let's meditate on that for a second before we proceed: this isn't
> a game, this is a discussion regarding industry best practice.
>
>
>
> Given the scope and potential impact of the OWASP Top Ten, and it's
> reflection on OWASP as a group, I think it is absolutely crucial that this
> in particular gets discussed openly, and those who have something to
> participate can, and this is broadly endorsed by OWASP as a community,
> instead of the ongoing dissension happening now.
>
>
>
> May I recommend setting up something like a Google Hangouts meeting for
> people to both voice their feedback, as well as for the *relevant top-ten
> working group to work with the community to decide something mutually
> workable. *(is the working group open to this?)
>
>
>
> Have a grand and glorious day,
>
>
>
>
>
> Norm
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Ryan <
> tom.ryan at providesecurity.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dinis,
>
>
>
> How can people participate remotely? One of the biggest questions asked
> from my customers, why was Fortify/WebInspect, IBM and CheckMarx left out
> participating and sharing data?
>
> In the sense of transparency, I work for HPE Fortify.
>
>
>
> When my customers asked, I reached out to my Product Management and
> Research Team and they said no one was asked to share data or participate.
>
> I then reached out to friends at IBM and CHeckMarx and they said the
> same.  Is there a reason why 3 of the 4 Leaders were left out from
> Participating?
>
>
>
> Thanks for all your great work!
>
>
>
> Tom Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-topten/attachments/20170427/fc72f605/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-topten mailing list