3 ms·
When we started a vulnerability disclosure program for Mastodon (funded by the EU through some start-up provider they had a contract with) the first rule they h
by nightpool 4y ago
When we started a vulnerability disclosure program for Mastodon (funded by the EU through some start-up provider they had a contract with) the first rule they heavily encouraged was that we consider all DOS vulnerabilities out of scope. There are just so many easy ways to DOS a complex system by taking legitimate-but-costly actions that worrying about the small % of illegitimate actions that could also DOS a system just isn't worth it for most projects.
(This is not to say that we wouldn't consider the very rare case where a trivial input could lock up the system for hours due to us missing a timeout or something important, or that we wouldn't consider e.g. rate limiting bypasses as vulnerabilities. I'm not speaking officially or completely here, we try to apply a lot of nuance and common sense to the way we review vulnerabilities when disclosed)
- _8j50 4y agoI am guessing you would consider anything that disrupts the whole mastodon instance (as opposed to specific features) very seriously?
- toast0 4y agoNot the GP, but I would imagine specifics matter. If one or a handful request blocks the instance, that's worth serious consideration. If 10Gbps line rate requests blocks the instance, that's not worth serious consideration. In between is in between. Based on the article context, I'd imagine most DoS reports are low quality, lacking context and specificity, so responding to them takes more time than the report did (hey, there's a DoS), so explicity rejecting them in a vulnerability program and making exceptions seems like the right move.