wasc-wafec@lists.webappsec.org

WASC Web Application Firewall Evaluation Criteria Project Mailing List

View all threads

Gartner’s Magic Quadrant

CH
Christian Heinrich
Fri, Jun 20, 2014 10:42 PM

Since the Gartner Magic Quadrant I believe we should include
consideration of http://blogs.gartner.com/adam-hils/tag/waf/ within
the next release of WAFEC, specifically if there is something missing
from WAFEC that was considered by Gartner?

Aside from Common Criteria, the Gartner Magic Quadrant is a major
factor in selecting a WAF product?

This may also increase the visibility of the next release of WAFEC if
it is cited by Gartner.

Please let me know your thoughts?

--
Regards,
Christian Heinrich

http://cmlh.id.au/contact

Since the Gartner Magic Quadrant I believe we should include consideration of http://blogs.gartner.com/adam-hils/tag/waf/ within the next release of WAFEC, specifically if there is something missing from WAFEC that was considered by Gartner? Aside from Common Criteria, the Gartner Magic Quadrant is a major factor in selecting a WAF product? This may also increase the visibility of the next release of WAFEC if it is cited by Gartner. Please let me know your thoughts? -- Regards, Christian Heinrich http://cmlh.id.au/contact
KH
Klaubert Herr da Silveira
Sat, Jun 21, 2014 4:05 AM

Gartner MQ is normally high level, and wide in aspects considered (market
share, global/regional presence, and the testimonial of users about the
product and support). The product is just one of then. And I see wafec with
the potential for a technical view, that MQ don't offer. Allows the user to
a more deep technical evaluation of the products.
Be referred by Gartner will bring good exposure, no doubt.

Klaubert
Em 20/06/2014 19:42, "Christian Heinrich" christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au
escreveu:

Since the Gartner Magic Quadrant I believe we should include
consideration of http://blogs.gartner.com/adam-hils/tag/waf/ within
the next release of WAFEC, specifically if there is something missing
from WAFEC that was considered by Gartner?

Aside from Common Criteria, the Gartner Magic Quadrant is a major
factor in selecting a WAF product?

This may also increase the visibility of the next release of WAFEC if
it is cited by Gartner.

Please let me know your thoughts?

--
Regards,
Christian Heinrich

http://cmlh.id.au/contact


wasc-wafec mailing list
wasc-wafec@lists.webappsec.org
http://lists.webappsec.org/mailman/listinfo/wasc-wafec_lists.webappsec.org

Gartner MQ is normally high level, and wide in aspects considered (market share, global/regional presence, and the testimonial of users about the product and support). The product is just one of then. And I see wafec with the potential for a technical view, that MQ don't offer. Allows the user to a more deep technical evaluation of the products. Be referred by Gartner will bring good exposure, no doubt. Klaubert Em 20/06/2014 19:42, "Christian Heinrich" <christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au> escreveu: > Since the Gartner Magic Quadrant I believe we should include > consideration of http://blogs.gartner.com/adam-hils/tag/waf/ within > the next release of WAFEC, specifically if there is something missing > from WAFEC that was considered by Gartner? > > Aside from Common Criteria, the Gartner Magic Quadrant is a major > factor in selecting a WAF product? > > This may also increase the visibility of the next release of WAFEC if > it is cited by Gartner. > > Please let me know your thoughts? > > > -- > Regards, > Christian Heinrich > > http://cmlh.id.au/contact > > _______________________________________________ > wasc-wafec mailing list > wasc-wafec@lists.webappsec.org > http://lists.webappsec.org/mailman/listinfo/wasc-wafec_lists.webappsec.org >
CH
Christian Heinrich
Sat, Jun 21, 2014 7:22 AM

Klaubert,

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Klaubert Herr da Silveira
klaubert@gmail.com wrote:

Gartner MQ is normally high level, and wide in aspects considered (market
share, global/regional presence, and the testimonial of users about the
product and support). The product is just one of then. And I see wafec with
the potential for a technical view, that MQ don't offer. Allows the user to
a more deep technical evaluation of the products.
Be referred by Gartner will bring good exposure, no doubt.

I agree with the above but without a reasonable analysis of the
methodology used by Gartner to produce the Magic Quadrant I can't make
a definitive assertion.

At the very least we will learn what Gartner consider important which
may not be technical aspects of a WAF, such as vendor solvency,
support, etc.

Inversely, we may be able to influence Gartner in what technical
feature should be mandatory for a WAF for their next release of the
Magic Quadrant.

I have created and an informal TODO list at
https://github.com/cmlh/WAFEC/issues and added this to it.

--
Regards,
Christian Heinrich

http://cmlh.id.au/contact

Klaubert, On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Klaubert Herr da Silveira <klaubert@gmail.com> wrote: > Gartner MQ is normally high level, and wide in aspects considered (market > share, global/regional presence, and the testimonial of users about the > product and support). The product is just one of then. And I see wafec with > the potential for a technical view, that MQ don't offer. Allows the user to > a more deep technical evaluation of the products. > Be referred by Gartner will bring good exposure, no doubt. I agree with the above but without a reasonable analysis of the methodology used by Gartner to produce the Magic Quadrant I can't make a definitive assertion. At the very least we will learn what Gartner consider important which may not be technical aspects of a WAF, such as vendor solvency, support, etc. Inversely, we may be able to influence Gartner in what technical feature should be mandatory for a WAF for their next release of the Magic Quadrant. I have created and an informal TODO list at https://github.com/cmlh/WAFEC/issues and added this to it. -- Regards, Christian Heinrich http://cmlh.id.au/contact
AC
Anton Chuvakin
Mon, Jun 23, 2014 3:03 AM

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au> wrote:

Since the Gartner Magic Quadrant I believe we should include
consideration of http://blogs.gartner.com/adam-hils/tag/waf/ within
the next release of WAFEC, specifically if there is something missing
from WAFEC that was considered by Gartner?

Aside from Common Criteria, the Gartner Magic Quadrant is a major
factor in selecting a WAF product?

This may also increase the visibility of the next release of WAFEC if
it is cited by Gartner.

Please let me know your thoughts?

Well, I am not from the team that created the document, but I was one of
the reviewers.

If you have any data you want to pass to the author team, I'd be happy to
do it. The doc is very new and at this point [frankly] is not yet a major
force for WAF selection -- but given the influence of other MQ docs, it is
very likely to be.

Also,  if you [or anybody else on the list] has any specific feedback you
want passed to the team authors, I can do that too.

--
Dr. Anton Chuvakin
Site: http://www.chuvakin.org
Twitter: @anton_chuvakin
Work: http://www.linkedin.com/in/chuvakin

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Christian Heinrich < christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au> wrote: > Since the Gartner Magic Quadrant I believe we should include > consideration of http://blogs.gartner.com/adam-hils/tag/waf/ within > the next release of WAFEC, specifically if there is something missing > from WAFEC that was considered by Gartner? > > Aside from Common Criteria, the Gartner Magic Quadrant is a major > factor in selecting a WAF product? > > This may also increase the visibility of the next release of WAFEC if > it is cited by Gartner. > > Please let me know your thoughts? Well, I am not from the team that created the document, but I was one of the reviewers. If you have any data you want to pass to the author team, I'd be happy to do it. The doc is very new and at this point [frankly] is not yet a major force for WAF selection -- but given the influence of other MQ docs, it is very likely to be. Also, if you [or anybody else on the list] has any *specific* feedback you want passed to the team authors, I can do that too. -- Dr. Anton Chuvakin Site: http://www.chuvakin.org Twitter: @anton_chuvakin Work: http://www.linkedin.com/in/chuvakin
CH
Christian Heinrich
Mon, Jun 23, 2014 10:29 PM

Anton,

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Anton Chuvakin anton@chuvakin.org wrote:

Well, I am not from the team that created the document, but I was one of the
reviewers.

If you have any data you want to pass to the author team, I'd be happy to do
it. The doc is very new and at this point [frankly] is not yet a major force
for WAF selection -- but given the influence of other MQ docs, it is very
likely to be.

Also,  if you [or anybody else on the list] has any specific feedback you
want passed to the team authors, I can do that too.

Would you be able to take the lead (with another person who would
perform due diligence} on correlating the next release of WAFEC to the
Gartner MQ after we have completed the review of the current WAFEC
release and published the draft additional content that we intend to
include/exclude [in the next release of WAFEC]?

--
Regards,
Christian Heinrich

http://cmlh.id.au/contact

Anton, On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Anton Chuvakin <anton@chuvakin.org> wrote: > Well, I am not from the team that created the document, but I was one of the > reviewers. > > If you have any data you want to pass to the author team, I'd be happy to do > it. The doc is very new and at this point [frankly] is not yet a major force > for WAF selection -- but given the influence of other MQ docs, it is very > likely to be. > > Also, if you [or anybody else on the list] has any *specific* feedback you > want passed to the team authors, I can do that too. Would you be able to take the lead (with another person who would perform due diligence} on correlating the next release of WAFEC to the Gartner MQ after we have completed the review of the current WAFEC release and published the draft additional content that we intend to include/exclude [in the next release of WAFEC]? -- Regards, Christian Heinrich http://cmlh.id.au/contact
AC
Anton Chuvakin
Tue, Jul 15, 2014 1:17 AM

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au> wrote:

Anton,

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Anton Chuvakin anton@chuvakin.org
wrote:

Well, I am not from the team that created the document, but I was one of

the

reviewers.

If you have any data you want to pass to the author team, I'd be happy

to do

it. The doc is very new and at this point [frankly] is not yet a major

force

for WAF selection -- but given the influence of other MQ docs, it is very
likely to be.

Also,  if you [or anybody else on the list] has any specific feedback

you

want passed to the team authors, I can do that too.

Would you be able to take the lead (with another person who would
perform due diligence} on correlating the next release of WAFEC to the
Gartner MQ after we have completed the review of the current WAFEC
release and published the draft additional content that we intend to
include/exclude [in the next release of WAFEC]?

Sure, that sounds like something I can do. Frankly, MQ will be orthogonal
to WAFEC [IMHO] except for maybe defining what constitutes a WAF...

--
Dr. Anton Chuvakin
Site: http://www.chuvakin.org
Twitter: @anton_chuvakin
Work: http://www.linkedin.com/in/chuvakin

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Christian Heinrich < christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au> wrote: > Anton, > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Anton Chuvakin <anton@chuvakin.org> > wrote: > > Well, I am not from the team that created the document, but I was one of > the > > reviewers. > > > > If you have any data you want to pass to the author team, I'd be happy > to do > > it. The doc is very new and at this point [frankly] is not yet a major > force > > for WAF selection -- but given the influence of other MQ docs, it is very > > likely to be. > > > > Also, if you [or anybody else on the list] has any *specific* feedback > you > > want passed to the team authors, I can do that too. > > Would you be able to take the lead (with another person who would > perform due diligence} on correlating the next release of WAFEC to the > Gartner MQ after we have completed the review of the current WAFEC > release and published the draft additional content that we intend to > include/exclude [in the next release of WAFEC]? > > > Sure, that sounds like something I can do. Frankly, MQ will be orthogonal to WAFEC [IMHO] except for maybe defining what constitutes a WAF... -- Dr. Anton Chuvakin Site: http://www.chuvakin.org Twitter: @anton_chuvakin Work: http://www.linkedin.com/in/chuvakin