4 ms·
> Some other people highlight this mentality as extremely dangerous from a defense standpoint. Often the answer this group offers is yet another third party so
by Threeve303 6y ago
> Some other people highlight this mentality as extremely dangerous from a defense standpoint.
Often the answer this group offers is yet another third party solution that is popular at the time. Then they give these tools the high level of permissions they need to function. Cycle repeats.
- bayindirh 6y agoNope. They advocate immediate disclosure of zero day exploits found by government and mandatory policies against stocking of these vulnerabilities for using them as/in cyber weapons. That book contains no corporate backing/advertising.
- Threeve303 6y agoSorry, I wasn't referring to the book specifically. Just talking about my experience during these kinds of conversations in government and the corporate world.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago> They advocate immediate disclosure of zero day exploits found by government How do you think governments find these vulnerabilities? Accidentally, under the couch cushions? What you actually seem to be proposing- in practice- is a ban on government-funded vulnerability research.
- bayindirh 6y ago> What you actually seem to be proposing- in practice- is a ban on government-funded vulnerability research. To be completely honest, I don't have a concrete answer to this question yet because I haven't finished the book and didn't give the hard think it requires. However, I can see and both parties' perspective and reasoning. I just need to give these perspectives a good rub with my own views.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoIf the current state of affairs is better than governments not doing any such research, yet responsible disclosure of any vulnerabilities is, in turn, better than keeping them private, then any government that believes in the transitory principle should continue their research and start disclosing their findings.