Slashdot Mirror
Google Ups Bug Bounty To $20,000
Trailrunner7 writes, quoting Threatpost: "Search giant Google said it is quintupling the top bounty it will pay for information on security holes in its products to $20,000. Google said it was updating its rewards and rules for the bounty program, which is celebrating its first anniversary. In addition to a top prize of $20,000 for vulnerabilities that allow code to be executed on product systems, Google said it would pay $10,000 for SQL injection and equivalent vulnerabilities in its services and for certain vulnerabilities that leak information or allow attackers to bypass authentication or authorization features."
It probably means that they realize that they've come to a point in the project where crowdsourcing QA is more cost-effective than using internal QA. This isn't because their internal QA is incompetent, it's because they are only just so many.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
the inference to be drawn is that finding a security hole would take more than 20k of programmer time, so probably the holes remaining are _hard_ to find. Seems more like a success than a failure to me.
I can see why you might think that, but I strongly suspect that Google has already put their own programmers to work finding bugs. This is their attempt to "crowdsource" the bug-finding. The more eyes on the code, the more bugs that can be found. Also they realize that not all the brilliant minds work for them, and some might decide to exploit a bug for monetary gain rather then turn it in. The bounty is to give those people a bit more of a reason to turn the bug in.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
I am sure Google is employing many many very able programmers, but if Google has to pay bounty to hackers up to $20,000 to find bugs, does that mean the programmers who are sitting in Google's offices around the world have phailed?
Not necessarily. It just means that while they're confident in their code, they believe that it's always a good idea to have things vetted in the real world. The reasoning behind this is that the developers are often so close to the code that they can't possibly see EVERY conceivable bug or vulnerability. Inviting others to poke your products with a stick on a constant basis is a good thing. It lets Google get some good press, and also a MUCH more thorough real-world trial than they could do in house.
In a way, it's somewhat remniscent of the developers who worked on the flight software for the Space Shuttle computers. Teams would actually compete to see who could find more bugs in the other team's code. This lead to some of the most robust and bug-free software ever written.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
What they're offering is still well below the $100,000 that a digital arms dealer like Vupen charges for a year's subscription plan for exploits it discovers. And according to the Forbes article I linked to, some vulnerabilities individually cost several times more than that. It's so fucked up that NATO counties pay these security firms like Vupen, HB Gary Federal, etc. for exploits in the products of legitimate software companies for their use in cyberwarfare, espionage, and other nefarious shit. They'd rather leave everyone vulnerable, not even using the info they purchase to shore up their own government's systems lest the vulnerability become public and they lose the value of their purchase. If I were Google I'd save the bounty money and give it to their lawyers to create a tsunami of FOIA requests with every government they can to get the info about whatever exploits they have. Start a PR campaign letting the public know that their own government have knowledge that could help software companies make their products more secure for the computing public at large. Maybe if some influential people in the security field and tech firms complain loudly enough, something will change. I doubt it, but what hell else is there to do?