3 ms·

A normal process goes like this: - Researcher finds bug - Researcher discloses to vendor - Vendor fixes (or not) - Researcher discloses bug publically once

A normal process goes like this: - Researcher finds bug - Researcher discloses to vendor - Vendor fixes (or not) - Researcher discloses bug publically once vendor has fixed, or after X time (whichever is first) This is roughly how Project Zero goes, and it's a good mix between giving the vendor the opportinity to fix it and deploy the update before it gets exploited. It's very naive to assume that bugs can be fixed before others can exploit them. Bugs take time to fix, and the process takes time, especially when dealing with large enterprises.

xigency 7y ago
Why is it whichever is first and not after a fixed time? I see a benefit to waiting X time regardless, because it allows more time for the patch to circulate to everyone. What is the benefit to disclosing it immediately after it is "fixed"?
- thefifthsetpin 7y ago
  It's generally not possible to release a fix without effectively disclosing the vulnerability. It's just too easy for people to deduce what the vulnerability was by looking at the patch.
- slrz 7y ago
  The vulnerability can often be discerned from the patch. Burying it amidst lots of unrelated bogus changes and not calling out its security relevance is going to annoy your users.
- CraftThatBlock 7y ago
  It's typically not immediately after it's fixed, but usally about a week or so, to let the majority update. The vendor can also usually request an extension, as per the Project Zero guidelines, of I believe 1 month if they confirm to be actively working on a patch. The goal of responsible disclosure is to help the vendor and their users' be more secure, so having a policy that is balence between the two is important to let the vendor fix it, and to not let the users be possibly hacked
nbk_2000 7y ago
Couldn't the researcher have just sold his finding to Project Zero? If so, that seems like a superior alternative to immediate public disclosure.

xigency 7y ago

Why is it whichever is first and not after a fixed time? I see a benefit to waiting X time regardless, because it allows more time for the patch to circulate to everyone. What is the benefit to disclosing it immediately after it is "fixed"?

thefifthsetpin 7y ago
It's generally not possible to release a fix without effectively disclosing the vulnerability. It's just too easy for people to deduce what the vulnerability was by looking at the patch.
slrz 7y ago
The vulnerability can often be discerned from the patch. Burying it amidst lots of unrelated bogus changes and not calling out its security relevance is going to annoy your users.
CraftThatBlock 7y ago
It's typically not immediately after it's fixed, but usally about a week or so, to let the majority update. The vendor can also usually request an extension, as per the Project Zero guidelines, of I believe 1 month if they confirm to be actively working on a patch. The goal of responsible disclosure is to help the vendor and their users' be more secure, so having a policy that is balence between the two is important to let the vendor fix it, and to not let the users be possibly hacked

nbk_2000 7y ago

Couldn't the researcher have just sold his finding to Project Zero? If so, that seems like a superior alternative to immediate public disclosure.