3 ms·

If the vulnerability is 'any one of our API users could have accessed <large set of private data> over the past 3 years' that's a lot more than 'we found an obs

If the vulnerability is 'any one of our API users could have accessed <large set of private data> over the past 3 years' that's a lot more than 'we found an obscure latent security issue'. Especially if you can't prove it didn't happen by examining logs (which they can't, because they didn't keep logs) or auditing your API users (which they couldn't). It doesn't feel like splitting hairs to separate this from things like 'we found an obscure xss exploit internally which is now fixed'. It is explicitly a Possible Breach, not just a Bug. If you're arguing that Possible Breaches don't require disclosure, well, that's a choice to make, but it worked out poorly in this case and it will probably keep working out poorly because everything G does is under a microscope until the far right gets bored with them.

spoondan 8y ago
There’s a strong argument against disclosure of internally discovered bugs (security or otherwise) that have no evidence of user impact. Internal efforts to find and fix bugs improve actual quality/safety but, if indiscriminately announced, harm perceived quality/safety. We have seen repeatedly how bad security reporting of actual weaknesses can drive users to more risky alternatives or behaviors, lowering actual security and privacy. It’s just too easy to say that all major security defects should be announced or that no major defects should ever exist. There are about 430 developers that could have exploited this vulnerability. There was no evidence in the available two weeks of logs of it being exploited. And the number of users and types of data available make Google+ a low value target. The decision to not announce was reasonable, common, legal, and moral. It sets a poor standard to suggest they should have acted different because they’re now under fire from people with far darker motives than reporting truth or advocating for consumer privacy. Those exploiting the story for their own gain should be shamed rather than capitulated to.
tptacek 8y ago
The vulnerability that was discovered here was less significant than an "obscure XSS exploit", not that it matters at all to the analysis.
UncleMeat 8y ago
An xss bug exposes even more data than this vuln. Why would that be less severe?

spoondan 8y ago

There’s a strong argument against disclosure of internally discovered bugs (security or otherwise) that have no evidence of user impact. Internal efforts to find and fix bugs improve actual quality/safety but, if indiscriminately announced, harm perceived quality/safety. We have seen repeatedly how bad security reporting of actual weaknesses can drive users to more risky alternatives or behaviors, lowering actual security and privacy. It’s just too easy to say that all major security defects should be announced or that no major defects should ever exist. There are about 430 developers that could have exploited this vulnerability. There was no evidence in the available two weeks of logs of it being exploited. And the number of users and types of data available make Google+ a low value target. The decision to not announce was reasonable, common, legal, and moral. It sets a poor standard to suggest they should have acted different because they’re now under fire from people with far darker motives than reporting truth or advocating for consumer privacy. Those exploiting the story for their own gain should be shamed rather than capitulated to.

tptacek 8y ago

The vulnerability that was discovered here was less significant than an "obscure XSS exploit", not that it matters at all to the analysis.

UncleMeat 8y ago

An xss bug exposes even more data than this vuln. Why would that be less severe?