3 ms·

So let me get this straight: are you arguing that because some portion of bugs each year is due to vendor negligence, it is OK for us security researchers to ma

• tptacek 9y ago
  Obviously, yes. Your "some portion of" should read "virtually all". I answered your question. But you didn't answer my question. What about the flaws that aren't unintuitive? What about the bog standard integer overflows vendors routinely leave in code because they won't pay what it costs to ensure they don't ship them?
  • kelnos 9y ago
    How does that matter? The only thing that matters is the harm that certain types of disclosures will do to average users. It doesn't matter whether a bug could have easily been found before release or not; the bug is there, in the wild, in a position to harm users. By all means, vendors should be taken to task, and be beaten up even more when a bug was easily avoidable. But a bug's stupidity is completely unrelated to how a user might be harmed by an "irresponsible" disclosure. Giving the vendor their just desserts is secondary to that.
    • wglb 9y ago
      > The only thing that matters is the harm that certain types of disclosures will do to average users I disagree. This does not account for the fact that malicious actors are likely to exploit these before the vendor fixes them on a schedule that they would prefer to dictate. And all users are not incapable of making alternative judgments about the use of vulnerable technology. Users include my Mom, hackers at small companies, giant corporations who are capable of overnight turning off SMB V1. The harm to users comes from vulnerable software that the vendors put there in the first place.