6 ms·

How much did Google offer for a security bug (if they would have accepted it)?

tptacek 8y ago
It very much depends on the bug.
chipperyman573 8y ago
A bug by the same author (referenced in the article) that allowed anyone to undetectably upload a sitemap to any other person's website (and appear at the top of search results by claiming to be associated with the website) only got $5000, when it could have easily been sold for tens of thousands to blackhat SEO companies. So the answer is probably "way less than street value but still nonzero" http://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blog/google-xml-sitemap-auth-bypass-black-hat-seo-bug-bounty/ http://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blog/google-xml-sitemap-auth-byp...
- tptacek 8y ago
  That's a really good bug! But $5k sounds pretty reasonable, since the only alternative market for it comes with pretty obscene legal risk (unlike an RCE, which will have a whole variety of white- and grey- market buyers, an SEO bug seller knows exactly what their buyer is doing with their work).
  - wolco 8y ago
    If you are in this business you are already connected with grey/black elements. Probably less risky than initially seems.
    - Izmaki 8y ago
      Plus I think it's safe to assume that they can handle themselves, anonymity wise. Tor and bitcoin is not rocket science
  - TomAnthony 8y ago
    OP here. Really interesting to get your take on that. From my (far less security educated) POV the Google XML bug felt less risky from a monetisation angle. I guess the difference is between exploiting it yourself vs selling it. There was a clear path to monetisation that didn't require selling the exploit on the black market, and which could well fly under the radar (from my reasonably well educated SEO POV). However, I don't think bug bounties necessarily need to equal the 'market value' of the bug, whatever that means.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      The logic I'd use is that selling a bug with full knowledge of the specific criminal or tortious activity it will be put to use in is more dangerous than selling a bug that has a relatively diverse market of buyers and for which you'd have strong plausible deniability (not to mention a network of gray-market middlemen insulating you from any actual knowledge of offenses). My mental model of this is Stephen Watt --- but I only know the surface level of what was reported in that case. Generally just my logic would be: selling bugs for which there's an established market is safer than selling one-off bugs to idiosyncratic buyers.
      - TomAnthony 8y ago
        That makes absolute sense to me, and I agree. However, it doesn't cover the aspect that some bugs are directly monetizable without needing to be sold (as was the case with my Google XML Sitemap exploit). Of course, there is a risk to directly monetizing such a bug too, but the risk calculation is then different.
    - chipperyman573 8y ago
      Just to clarify, when I said market value I was referring to the highest price you would get if you sold it on the open market (of course in this case you wouldn't just list it on ebay). Which is different from Google's bug bounty program as they are the only buyers in that system and could offer you as little as they wanted (or nothing at all), and you would have no recourse.
  - CPLX 8y ago
    Just curious as an academic matter here. What’s the legal risk from an exploit like this? Is the idea that manipulating URL’s like that for the victim site amounts to unauthorized use of their computer, hence CFAA stuff? Just curious how an expert would draw the line between black hat SEO and TOS violations and actual illegal acts.
- paxys 8y ago
  Bug bounties don't exist to prevent people from selling exploits on the black market. Those who were going to do so will do it anyways, and companies don't want a scenario where they have to bid against other buyers for such reports. They simply exist as a small incentive for folks who would have otherwise done nothing.
  - comboy 8y ago
    I don't understand your reasoning. If you are a black hat and you can get more money for the bug from the company than from selling it on the black market, why would you sell it on the black market?
    - notamy 8y ago
      Because maybe I can report it once to the company and make X amount of money, but if the black market price is X / 2, I can potentially sell it many times and make significantly more than X.
      - comboy 8y ago
        What I mean by black market price is total amount of money that you can make on that bug selling it on the black market.
    - paxys 8y ago
      That's not what I said. A black hat can still try and sell it to the company, but (1) it won't be through the bug bounty process and (2) they are likely not going to pay "market price", whatever that is.
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/index.html https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/inde... Looks like up to $30k per bug.

It very much depends on the bug.

A bug by the same author (referenced in the article) that allowed anyone to undetectably upload a sitemap to any other person's website (and appear at the top of search results by claiming to be associated with the website) only got $5000, when it could have easily been sold for tens of thousands to blackhat SEO companies. So the answer is probably "way less than street value but still nonzero" http://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blog/google-xml-sitemap-auth-bypass-black-hat-seo-bug-bounty/ http://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blog/google-xml-sitemap-auth-byp...

tptacek 8y ago
That's a really good bug! But $5k sounds pretty reasonable, since the only alternative market for it comes with pretty obscene legal risk (unlike an RCE, which will have a whole variety of white- and grey- market buyers, an SEO bug seller knows exactly what their buyer is doing with their work).
- wolco 8y ago
  If you are in this business you are already connected with grey/black elements. Probably less risky than initially seems.
  - Izmaki 8y ago
    Plus I think it's safe to assume that they can handle themselves, anonymity wise. Tor and bitcoin is not rocket science
- TomAnthony 8y ago
  OP here. Really interesting to get your take on that. From my (far less security educated) POV the Google XML bug felt less risky from a monetisation angle. I guess the difference is between exploiting it yourself vs selling it. There was a clear path to monetisation that didn't require selling the exploit on the black market, and which could well fly under the radar (from my reasonably well educated SEO POV). However, I don't think bug bounties necessarily need to equal the 'market value' of the bug, whatever that means.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The logic I'd use is that selling a bug with full knowledge of the specific criminal or tortious activity it will be put to use in is more dangerous than selling a bug that has a relatively diverse market of buyers and for which you'd have strong plausible deniability (not to mention a network of gray-market middlemen insulating you from any actual knowledge of offenses). My mental model of this is Stephen Watt --- but I only know the surface level of what was reported in that case. Generally just my logic would be: selling bugs for which there's an established market is safer than selling one-off bugs to idiosyncratic buyers.
    - TomAnthony 8y ago
      That makes absolute sense to me, and I agree. However, it doesn't cover the aspect that some bugs are directly monetizable without needing to be sold (as was the case with my Google XML Sitemap exploit). Of course, there is a risk to directly monetizing such a bug too, but the risk calculation is then different.
  - chipperyman573 8y ago
    Just to clarify, when I said market value I was referring to the highest price you would get if you sold it on the open market (of course in this case you wouldn't just list it on ebay). Which is different from Google's bug bounty program as they are the only buyers in that system and could offer you as little as they wanted (or nothing at all), and you would have no recourse.
- CPLX 8y ago
  Just curious as an academic matter here. What’s the legal risk from an exploit like this? Is the idea that manipulating URL’s like that for the victim site amounts to unauthorized use of their computer, hence CFAA stuff? Just curious how an expert would draw the line between black hat SEO and TOS violations and actual illegal acts.
paxys 8y ago
Bug bounties don't exist to prevent people from selling exploits on the black market. Those who were going to do so will do it anyways, and companies don't want a scenario where they have to bid against other buyers for such reports. They simply exist as a small incentive for folks who would have otherwise done nothing.
- comboy 8y ago
  I don't understand your reasoning. If you are a black hat and you can get more money for the bug from the company than from selling it on the black market, why would you sell it on the black market?
  - notamy 8y ago
    Because maybe I can report it once to the company and make X amount of money, but if the black market price is X / 2, I can potentially sell it many times and make significantly more than X.
    - comboy 8y ago
      What I mean by black market price is total amount of money that you can make on that bug selling it on the black market.
  - paxys 8y ago
    That's not what I said. A black hat can still try and sell it to the company, but (1) it won't be through the bug bounty process and (2) they are likely not going to pay "market price", whatever that is.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/index.html https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/inde... Looks like up to $30k per bug.