Slashdot Mirror


Zero-Day Vulnerabilities On the Market

An anonymous reader writes "Zero-day vulnerabilities have become prized possessions to attackers and defenders alike. As the recent China-Google attack demonstrated, they are the basis on which most of the successful attacks are crafted these days. There is an underground market growing around these vulnerabilities, but there are also 'white markets' — set up by VeriSign, TippingPoint, Google — where they buy zero-day flaws and alert the companies so that they can patch their products before the vulnerabilities can be taken advantage of."

31 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. This is why we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    someone to invent time travel. Then someone could go into the future, get all the patches and fixes to various popular software, come back in time, and give it to us. Problem solved.

    1. Re:This is why we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      But the evil hackers with time travel will then go to the future to find out exploits before they've been found in the past.

    2. Re:This is why we need... by BartholomewBernsteyn · · Score: 5, Funny

      But the evil hackers with time travel will then go to the future to find out exploits before they've been found in the past.

      ...and that's exactly why need regulation with regards to time travel and access to time travel machinery, now. You there, drop that screwdriver!

    3. Re:This is why we need... by guruevi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, almost all classic DeLorean's have rotted away and we're still waiting on non-Newtonian Physicists to invent a Flux Capacitor.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  2. I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...especially when the market is fairly inelastic.

    The best "white market" tale I've ever heard is the militias that ran the "Golden Triangle" in the Southeast Asian highlands offering to sell the US the entire opium crop.

    I think it would be a grand strategy in Afghanistan -- build goodwill with farmers through buying their crop at prices better than the Taliban is offering, denying the Taliban a source of income through trafficking and probably having a significant supply reduction in the global heroin market. They could even use the opium for the production of painkillers for the legitimate market, which I understand is actually constrained sometimes by strict production limitations.

    You would think that white marketing the supply of illicit drugs would make a lot of sense -- by buying up supplies at the volume end of the market and denying it to the market, you would drive street prices through the roof and have far more impact on the consumers, pricing many out of the market. Cocaine supply diversity may make this difficult, but if pursued quietly it might actually be effective there too.

    Critics would decry giving money to criminals, but the "buy" could actually take place at the farming level where that's an option, thus totally undercutting the criminals. It'd be great to see a cost analysis to see if it would actually be cheaper to just buy up the drugs at the point of production versus the drug war, which doesn't work.

    1. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by adonoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'd work great until a few farmers, who sold to the government instead of the local underground, wind up dead.

    2. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by bluesatin · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it would be a grand strategy in Afghanistan -- build goodwill with farmers through buying their crop at prices better than the Taliban is offering, denying the Taliban a source of income through trafficking and probably having a significant supply reduction in the global heroin market.

      This would probably cause a knock-on effect of increasing production in the area, due to the fact that you will be increasing the profits for the poppy growers, and perhaps also encouraging people to start poppy farming; selling to US troops is probably a hell of a lot less scary than selling to the Taliban.

    3. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Buying products other than opium, i.e. incentives to plant other crops would be better.

      On another point, don't you think the Taliban might be a little irritated by this and, ooooh I don't know, cut off some farmers heads? I hear they've been known to do that to make a point.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by Ltap · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're right. The drug-growing problem in Afghanistan is two-fold: very little will grow there other than desert plants. Opium grows there and is extremely profitable to grow, so if they were to try and grow other crops, they would probably not be sustainable without more infrastructure (such as an irrigation network to grow crops that need more ground water). There have been attempts to cultivate some local plants to extract oils for use in beauty products, but it's a niche market and only a small amount of farmers can do it without over-saturating the market. A crop that would grow in Afghanistan, is in demand, and is rare enough to warrant transportation costs to the rest of the world is the ideal crop, and right now that is opium. Until there is a viable alternative, that is what farmers will grow.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    5. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can incentivize the growing of other crops, too, but we should also be prepared to buy up the opium crop.

      The alternative is destroying the opium crop; this impoverishes the farmer further, destroys his livelihood and causes him to not just grow opium, but join the Taliban.

    6. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The taliban are actually opposed to drugs production. While they were in power, the area of opium cultures fell down incredibely quick. It came back thanks to the war. The drugs lords are a faction different from the talibans.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by Jenming · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I bet the Opium would still reach the consumer at comparable prices.

      The Opiate trade does not exist because of Afghanistan farmers or the Taliban, it exists because consumers really want Opiates.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    8. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by Hasai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Critics would decry giving money to criminals, but the "buy" could actually take place at the farming level where that's an option, thus totally undercutting the criminals.

      And where, in regions that routinely grow opium, would this be an 'option?' The criminals will show up at the farmer's doorstep, take the money, then butcher both the farmer and his family to make an example.

      I saw the same sort of thing happen in S.A., where this one campesino decided he wasn't going to grow coca anymore: the local enforcers promptly showed-up, dragged him and his family out and forced them to kneel in front of their house, then went right down the row, from youngest to oldest. Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.

      The term 'naive' doesn't even begin to describe your idea.

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    9. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Taliban sells heroin?

      Um... no. In July 2000, Mullah Omar ordered a ban on poppy cultivation. As far as I know, this hasn't been lifted. Other members of the Northern Alliance are responsible.

      I presume you are a US citizen; please know your enemy. The Taliban may be at war with the US, but they are even harder on drugs. It is about as conceivable as Pat Robertson selling heroin to fund Christian Outreach.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    10. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The taliban are actually opposed to drugs production. While they were in power, the area of opium cultures fell down incredibely quick. It came back thanks to the war. The drugs lords are a faction different from the talibans.

      Which is all nice and fine as long as the Taliban remains in control. But what happened after?

      There are reports that the Taliban are now involved in the drug trade again. Despite the use of this as obvious propaganda, it isn't that far fetched as the Taliban initially hadn't had a problem with opium since it was a drug for foreigners (hashish was another matter). Of course, it's also very likely that the Taliban is only one of many players in the increased trade. Narcotics is a major industry and quickly becomes prominent in any unstable environment. It becomes a vehicle for not only criminals and warlords but other traders in power to include intelligence agencies and legitimate businesses.

    11. Re:I'm surprised white markets aren't more common by Zerth · · Score: 2, Informative
  3. ... you are sadly mistaken by thijsh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You seem to be under the impression that the war (on drugs) has anything to do with logical reasoning...
    It's a great idea though, and I bet it will in fact work *and* be cheaper.

  4. Exactly. by khasim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember, we're not talking about the farmers being the equal of the distributors.

    If you start taking away a source of revenue, you had better be able to defend that with violence of your own.

    And anyway, if the farmers are growing dope, they're not growing food. How about offer to buy the food that the farmers grow at a higher rate than the processors pay for the dope?

  5. Re:"Zero-day" is just noise by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

    0-day means there is no patch available, as opposed to vulns that come out after patches are issued and you could possibly upgrade your system to being secure.

    Anything that is patched, but you haven't bothered to update your system and are thus vulnerable to, isn't a 0-day.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  6. How does the purchaser of an exploit... by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...know that it has not also been sold to someone else? And who brokers these deals? I can't imagine the parties trusting each other.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  7. Re:"Zero-day" is just noise by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I always thought 0-day should refer to time between the software itself is releasedand an exploit is found. Frankly, that would make more sense and that's the type of vulnerability that would actually be somewhat impressive as well as potentially devastating. If a piece of software has been floating around for a few months and then an attack against it is announced, I assume that the vector has been exploited already without an announcement and am hardly surprised that a vulnerability has been found by that point in time.

  8. Does it matter? by khasim · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you are the company who wrote the software, you now know where the flaw is and can fix it.

    If you release a patch, that could be reverse engineered and the bad guys would find the flaw anyway.

    1. Re:Does it matter? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > If you are the company who wrote the software, you now know where the flaw
      > is and can fix it.

      But if you are a black hat (or a government: same thing) you want exclusive ownership. Even if you are the company that wrote the software you don't want the exploit sold to black hats who will exploit it between now and the time you deploy your fix (or afterward against the many customers who won't upgrade).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  9. Re:Buy them by SeePage87 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, I know /.ers rarely read TFA, but did you even read the summary? They explicitly mention "white markets" where companies can do just that. If the white markets are well known about, learning of an exploit is often likely to be more valuable to the company than a hacker. A company can suffer liability for damages, lose clients, suffer hits to their company's good will, and, depending on the nature of the software and what it's used for, and the exploit and how it works, any number of other things. Those buying the exploits can't know how long it will be effective, or how profitable it will be. My guess is, the more profitable it could be, the quicker it will get fixed, so how much can the black market pay? Besides companies potentially paying better, there's the added bonus of not having to do something illegal, harmful and immoral, though I know that doesn't matter to some. And there might be the appeal of being on the side of preventing malicious attacks. Think about it, all the CS nerds will be able to effectively become digital Jack Bauers, and that's bound to get chicks.

  10. Re:Sure is... by insufflate10mg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Damn straight it is.

    The 0day black market has been thriving for over a decade; I remember being 13-14 years old, spent every day and night reading and learning about computer security. It was a different world in hacking back then; the reason was because the lines between a secure system and an insecure system were more blurred. Most machines/network one would target had a vulnerability that was exploitable, it was just a matter of spending enough days reading to discover it. It was an incredible time in the Internet's young life, but it is long gone. By the time I was 16 years old, I had joined my mentors in writing white papers relating to security, pen-testing, and trying to maintain integrity within the game. Technology moved faster than any of us had imagined, and we all moved on to our own specializations in computer science. Hacking was so open, so possible: it just took the right amount of knowledge to do it, and everyone who would do anything to not be a skiddie was busting their ass every day.

    We have moved on to different times. The line in the sand is so broad and sharp; you're either an advanced black hat, an advanced white hat, script kiddie, or nothing. Although I miss the old days, it is nice to see how far computer security has come. I'm proud to say that I am an "newer old school" hacker because with that area-of-specialization comes a unique set of skills that new-age "hackers" don't have. There are still the real old school hackers though, and I could only imagine the nostalgia they feel everyday and have been feeling for decades.

    Hacking is just not what it used to be, but this article (and the post I'm replying to) echo the faint sounds of the old days when we used to discover 0days, share them with our friends, protect them honorably, use them when necessary, and end up selling them out to their victim's companies to make the internet just a little bit safer.

  11. Be careful. by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > Besides companies potentially paying better, there's the added bonus of not
    > having to do something illegal, harmful and immoral...

    Be careful. If the company learns your identity during negotiations they might have you arrested for extortion.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Be careful. by SeePage87 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe. The interesting thing is that the exploit is both the attack also what is needed to fix it. There's a credible threat that others may use the same exploit, not just the one who found it. A company who did this openly, whose founding documents declare they only sell software vulnerability information with the software's creator, whose NDAs included clauses that they will never share this information with others in to perpetuity regardless of the potential client's decision on whether to buy the information... I think they could develop a defensible case and eventually a trusted brand image. Just because a company sells fire insurance doesn't mean they're really threatening to commit arson.

  12. Bad guys don't trust bad guys. :) by khasim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But if you are a black hat (or a government: same thing) you want exclusive ownership.

    :) And that is part of the problem when you choose to be one of the bad guys. You cannot trust the other bad guys to be honest in their deals.

    And that doesn't bother me. If anything, it should drive down the prices as none of the bad guys are going to invest a lot of money on something that they cannot be sure they have an exclusive option on.

  13. When will companies be held liable for bugs? by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Toyota's gonna catch holy hell for the whole "car randomly becomes kamikaze" bug with the accelerator. There are regulations and laws about this sort of thing. If I run a slaughterhouse and knowingly ship bad meat, I could go to jail. This isn't home hobbyist shit anymore, computers are serious business and Microsoft is wearing the big boy pants. Lives are at stake over this sort of thing. Dissidents can be targeted and killed. And even if it's not political but just plain' ol' computer crime, the losses can really add up.

    I'm not a fan of bogging the industry down with so much regulation that nobody can get anything done but it's clear that businesses are, generally, not self-policing and concern for public welfare is not on the agenda. They will not consider it until compelled to by force of law. And to all the business apologists complaining about the stifling hand of government laying heavily upon the necks of business, just remember that there wouldn't be a call for regulation if there wasn't a need for regulation. If slaughterhouse owners applied the same standard to meat intended for public consumption that they would apply for meat intended for their own tables, Upton Sinclair wouldn't have had a novel and we wouldn't have had an FDA.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  14. Not a trend. by yoda · · Score: 2, Informative

    The vulnerability contributor program @ Verisign and TippingPoint were setup by the same person. I know this because that person used to work for me. Google is buying simply as a reaction to the China stuff. This isn't a trend...though on the surface, it appears that way.

  15. What passes for Insightful... by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Informative

    Taliban and the Drug Trade
    Some members of the U.S. drug enforcement community suggest that a new strategy may have been adopted by the Taliban in the wake of their July 27, 2000 announced ban on cultivation. This strategy would reflect a desire by the Taliban to use their “monopoly” position to maximize profits, i.e. restrict supply by restricting cultivation; drive prices up dramatically; and sell from an extensive supply of stockpiled opium. According to the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP) personnel, in the past, up to 60% of opium stock has been stored for sale in future years."

    Uhm, no. What nut jobs like Mullah Omar say, and what they actually do, might overlap, but may not be entirely equivalent.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.