Slashdot Mirror
What is Responsible Disclosure for Security Flaws?
Silverdot writes "In an article on ZDNet, the author brought up a few cases of uneasy relationships between security researchers and software firms. While those who report the bugs should first seek to notify and work with the software firm to resolve the flaw, One researcher commented: "All researchers should follow responsible disclosure guidelines, but if a vendor like Microsoft takes six months to a year to fix a flaw, a researcher has every right to release the details." Should the onus be on the software firm to manage each issue and the relationship well, or does it fall to the morally responsible user?"
The cost of secrecy is high. Reasonable response times ( up to, say, 3 months) before disclosure should be allowed - even for firms that seem to be sitting on their hands, and if the firm is close to a patch and they are willing to communicate and work with the researcher a longer time may be reasonable. Overall, disclosure of a problem is always in the USERS best interest, and secrecy is always in the SOFTWARE FIRMS best interest. The longer a known security issue exists, in secret, the more likely it is that someone else has found it - and that puts everyone at risk. The rights of users ( who are victims of the software firms bad code) should always come before the rights of the software firm. Always. So this means disclosure should be seen as a blessing. Those who complain about irresponsible researchers putting everyone at risk are wrong - everyone is already AT RISK. Failure to let me know what risks I face should be seen as the problem. I need to know.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
"Responsible disclosure" is a propganda term propogated by the software firms to a) get as much time as possible to fix security holes, and b) indemnify themselves as much as possible against any public disclosure of said security holes by labeling the disclosers as 'irresponsible'.
If a security hole exists, it exists, despite how much public discussion about said hole is quashed. Today more than ever, there are unscrupulous people out there laboring to find and take advantage of these holes. Muzzling the virtuous hackers, who only wish to make things more secure, is counterproductive in the extreme. The only 'responsible disclosure' is full and immediate disclosure.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If you find a security hole in someone else's code you can either:
1) use the DJB approach: reveal the hole in a public forum, preferably with a working exploit.
2) use my preferred approach: fix your clients' copies of the program, and otherwise keep quiet. Consider it a competitive advantage when the next Apache/SSH/PHP worm hits.
Any other approach is an utter waste of time, for everyone except the vendor.
If you reveal the flaw only to the author, you are:
a) Working for someone else without getting paid.
b) Saying "it's okay" to write software with security holes, because shucks, some kind soul will fix it for you.
c) Not telling the rest of us, the sysadmins of the world, how to protect our own systems. You see, the company or author has already demonstrated incompetence. Why help them? Of course you don't owe anybody anything (see point #a) but if you're going to tell anybody, tell the people with the most to lose!
Of course, I'm assuming we're working with software where you have the source code. Secure software without source code is an oxymoron. And no, I don't think the license makes code more secure, since maybe 95% of the coders out there can't code properly. My ability to audit is what makes it more secure, and yes, I do as much of that as I can.
Let me make the point clear: I don't care if the author fixes the code or not, or how quickly he can "patch". I need to know the details of the problem so I can solve it myself. That's what's important.
People who advocate "irresponsible disclosure" (my term for any disclosure that doesn't inform the end-user first) are really secretly afraid that someone will someday find flaws in THEIR systems and embarrass them. But that's the point: embarrassment is a cost, and people will try to minimize costs any way they can. At some point they will actually try writing secure software. And maybe at some point, users will start demanding secure software.
I think we can all agree that the security situation is getting worse, not better. Most of the software I see these days is garbage, to put it mildly. Bloated, complex, insecure.
Constantly holding the hand of authors via irresponsible disclosure is not going to solve the problem. Do you want to wait until the government regulates software, basically punishing everybody for the sins of the incompetent? Or should we let market forces do their thing?
I mostly agree with your overall analysis, but I'm compelled to point out that this one statement seems self-contradicting. What is the difference whether a security issue is "known...in secret" rather than simply "unknown"? I submit that a better way to say this would be that "the longer any security issue exists, the more likely it is that someone else has found it," without regard to how known or unknown it may be during the interim.
The only way this is not true is if you consider the (perhaps non-trivial) cases where the "secret" is leaked, intentionally or otherwise.
Responsible disclosure from Microsoft's perspective: You tell us and only us. We'll tell the rest of the world when we think it's necessary (if ever).
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Responsible disclosure has no real benefit to the end user. It may stop some percentage of big outbreaks of worms but it doesnt in any way make life for admins guarding sensetive information a bit easier. From what i have understood many exploits are used by crackers long before they are in the wild. That is, many networks and servers are broken into and gathered for intel long before there is a patch, sometimes even for years.
Responsible disclosure only lenghten the period for the crackers in wich they can use their exploits for real cracking. It gives at best a breather for software manufacturers to drag their ass. It also doesnt promote real testing and auditing of software before its shipped. I would as an end user much prefer more tested software, that includes OSS thank you very much. Current release cycles is way to short to give any time for testing.
HTTP/1.1 400
I use OpenBSD too, so don't start with me.
How can you be happy when someone else is suffering? It's not your grandmothers fault she uses windows. OpenBSD is NOT appropriate for "home users", and it's not designed to be, and it cannot ever be as secure as it is yet as functional as required for non-power-users.
Every operating system in use on PC's has security issues, even openBSD. OpenBSD is where it is because it's entire focus is security/correctness.
Security and correctness are NOT the most important aspect of general software development - if they were the only requirements, then a lead box buried in the ground would easily be more secure than openBSD. The issue is functionality vs security and correctness.
When there is something that works as well as windows for what people that use windows need to do, but has fewer problems, people will change to it in droves. For some people, that is Mac OS - although it has its own severe security problems - do you laugh when people with macs have to reboot their machines because of SoftwareUpdates ?
In any case - 0 day full disclosure hurts the majority of computer users. No amount of pain will convince them to stop using windows. If you want people to stop using windows, develop a credible alternative. Don't sit and laugh at people that don't have better choices available to them, and then say things like "i support people making life harder for windows users".
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Refuse to sign the NDA. Then make a public announcement: "$AGENCY has notified us that a possible vulnerability exists, however they won't tell us what the vulnerability is unless we sign an NDA. Comitting a patch to fix the problem to CVS or releasing fixed code before they allow it would violate the NDA, and we aren't willing to agree to deliberately not fix a security bug.". Let the resulting PR headache be $AGENCY's headache.