3 ms·

"After 90 days elapse or a patch has been made broadly available" This incentivizes companies not to announce their patches, not to coordinate with Google, and

"After 90 days elapse or a patch has been made broadly available" This incentivizes companies not to announce their patches, not to coordinate with Google, and to only update in secret, because as soon as they tell Google they have a patch, the clock runs down in 7 days, rather than 90. This is a dangerous policy.

mikhailt 8y ago
No, it isn't. Anyone can break apart the patch and figure out what was changed, meaning they can figure out the security issue and take advantage of it. At this point, both Epic and Google are at fault for not disclosing the details and warning people to update right away.
- awics 8y ago
  There is usually a big difference time and yield in creating exploits from random binary updates and doing the same from disclosures. The amount of people who dissect, or even can dissect, updates are far less than everyone who follows disclosures. So I don't think that argument makes much sense in this scenario.
  - mikhailt 8y ago
    Normally I agree but this is Fortnite, massive profits all the time. Just a few hours worth of exploit can gain some a chunk of cash.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Epic is at fault, maybe, for not e-mailing Google every single day asking that they coordinate the announcement better. Google is at fault for not responding for 7 days and then disclosing, and is at fault for having a policy that makes announcing patches dangerous. If you think people should be warned right away, Epic should have the right to notify its own users, and Google should have the basic decency to reply to a request to coordinate.
  - mikhailt 8y ago
    Nope, Google is not obligated to reply at all nor do they have any obligation to hold on these announcements. There are no faults for Google here. Their 90-day policy is just a courtesy call that comes with an exception, the moment a patch is made available, the disclosure will be made public. Google is not being paid nor asked by Epic to find reports, Epic has no rights to anything. Google found the bug, they have the right to disclose it however they want. There are no legal standards anywhere that requires anyone to do anything with bug reports. Epic doesn't have any rights here, it sucks but they're not entitled to anything. I hate this because I've experienced this from Google before (at work), I would love to have that right to hold up to 90 days before we can notify people but until there are legal standards, there is no right.
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      > Google is not obligated to reply at all They have an ethical obligation. Security disclosures have major ethical concerns. If you're acting unethically, you are a dick. Sure, Epic doesn't have any rights here. But we don't need a law to know people [and corporations] should not be dicks. Google could have been more ethical by replying to the vendor after making their initial communication. They chose not to.
      - r0ll3rb0t 8y ago
        > They have an ethical obligation. Security disclosures have major ethical concerns. If you're acting unethically, you are a dick. You are correct in that Google has an ethical obligation; and they and met it by protecting all Android users. I would say that Google making this announcement lets all Android users know that its not safe to just randomly install apps on your phone. Yes, they allow it, but at the same time the public is genuinely ignorant of any type of security practices.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > Google is not obligated to reply at all nor do they have any obligation to hold on these announcements. There are no faults for Google here. This is a non-sequitur. You are equivocating between legal obligation and ethical obligation.
Someone1234 8y ago
Google independently discovered the issue, Google can therefore independently verify if a patch has fixed it with or without Epic's information.
PeterisP 8y ago
No, look at "broadly available" part of the sentence you quoted. It would be reasonable to tell Google that they have a patch, show them the patch, and tell that's going to be released on third thursday of September or whatever, and the disclosure should wait until that - that's compatible with that policy. Showing the patch to Google and coordinating with them doesn't start the clock, the clock starts when you start sending the patch to random users. It's not acceptable to release a patch to the general public and then delay the disclosure for weeks. Once Epic discloses the vulnerability to the bad guys (by making the patch broadly available), the good guys i.e. the general public needs to know the details ASAP. The 90 day buffer is the time for analyzing the vulnerability and developing (and testing) a fix for it - but not for deploying the fix; deployment must be much, much faster than that, preferably on a single day.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  That doesn't really change the incentive though. I guarantee Fortnite wishes they had silently released the patch and hope Google didn't know. I'm guessing they might in the future.

mikhailt 8y ago

No, it isn't. Anyone can break apart the patch and figure out what was changed, meaning they can figure out the security issue and take advantage of it. At this point, both Epic and Google are at fault for not disclosing the details and warning people to update right away.

awics 8y ago
There is usually a big difference time and yield in creating exploits from random binary updates and doing the same from disclosures. The amount of people who dissect, or even can dissect, updates are far less than everyone who follows disclosures. So I don't think that argument makes much sense in this scenario.
- mikhailt 8y ago
  Normally I agree but this is Fortnite, massive profits all the time. Just a few hours worth of exploit can gain some a chunk of cash.
peterwwillis 8y ago
Epic is at fault, maybe, for not e-mailing Google every single day asking that they coordinate the announcement better. Google is at fault for not responding for 7 days and then disclosing, and is at fault for having a policy that makes announcing patches dangerous. If you think people should be warned right away, Epic should have the right to notify its own users, and Google should have the basic decency to reply to a request to coordinate.
- mikhailt 8y ago
  Nope, Google is not obligated to reply at all nor do they have any obligation to hold on these announcements. There are no faults for Google here. Their 90-day policy is just a courtesy call that comes with an exception, the moment a patch is made available, the disclosure will be made public. Google is not being paid nor asked by Epic to find reports, Epic has no rights to anything. Google found the bug, they have the right to disclose it however they want. There are no legal standards anywhere that requires anyone to do anything with bug reports. Epic doesn't have any rights here, it sucks but they're not entitled to anything. I hate this because I've experienced this from Google before (at work), I would love to have that right to hold up to 90 days before we can notify people but until there are legal standards, there is no right.
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    > Google is not obligated to reply at all They have an ethical obligation. Security disclosures have major ethical concerns. If you're acting unethically, you are a dick. Sure, Epic doesn't have any rights here. But we don't need a law to know people [and corporations] should not be dicks. Google could have been more ethical by replying to the vendor after making their initial communication. They chose not to.
    - r0ll3rb0t 8y ago
      > They have an ethical obligation. Security disclosures have major ethical concerns. If you're acting unethically, you are a dick. You are correct in that Google has an ethical obligation; and they and met it by protecting all Android users. I would say that Google making this announcement lets all Android users know that its not safe to just randomly install apps on your phone. Yes, they allow it, but at the same time the public is genuinely ignorant of any type of security practices.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > Google is not obligated to reply at all nor do they have any obligation to hold on these announcements. There are no faults for Google here. This is a non-sequitur. You are equivocating between legal obligation and ethical obligation.

Someone1234 8y ago

Google independently discovered the issue, Google can therefore independently verify if a patch has fixed it with or without Epic's information.

PeterisP 8y ago

No, look at "broadly available" part of the sentence you quoted. It would be reasonable to tell Google that they have a patch, show them the patch, and tell that's going to be released on third thursday of September or whatever, and the disclosure should wait until that - that's compatible with that policy. Showing the patch to Google and coordinating with them doesn't start the clock, the clock starts when you start sending the patch to random users. It's not acceptable to release a patch to the general public and then delay the disclosure for weeks. Once Epic discloses the vulnerability to the bad guys (by making the patch broadly available), the good guys i.e. the general public needs to know the details ASAP. The 90 day buffer is the time for analyzing the vulnerability and developing (and testing) a fix for it - but not for deploying the fix; deployment must be much, much faster than that, preferably on a single day.

paulddraper 8y ago
That doesn't really change the incentive though. I guarantee Fortnite wishes they had silently released the patch and hope Google didn't know. I'm guessing they might in the future.