Application Security
2/5/2014
08:13 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Decline In Number Of Critical Vulnerabilities Could Be Deceiving

Researchers are often paid for discovering and privately disclosing software security flaws to vendors and third parties, but evidence of a market shift to paid research is still lacking

In 2013, the number of software flaws of critical severity -- as measured by their ranking on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) -- dropped by about 9 percent, according to Hewlett-Packard's 2013 Cyber Risk Report, released on Monday.

Good news for the software industry? Not necessarily, says Jacob West, chief technology officer for HP's enterprise security products group. The company's Zero Day Initiative, which buys vulnerabilities from researchers and then works with vendors to get them fixed, posits that critically rated software flaws are increasingly being sold to penetration testing firms and government agencies -- typically referred to as "gray markets" -- and to criminals on the black market.

"There is an increased value placed on the vulnerabilities that can cause a remote compromise somewhere," West says. "The increased market value is leading more of the total that are discovered to go to gray market or black market destinations than we have seen in the past."

Since 2008, the number of critical vulnerabilities -- typically those with a CVSS of 7.0 and higher -- disclosed each year has fallen. While vulnerability experts are increasingly critical of the CVSS's ability to measure the severity of a vulnerability, the trend appears to indicate that software vendors are succeeding in making exploitable vulnerabilities more difficult to find.

HP sees the trend in a different light, as its own purchases of vulnerabilities has generally fallen. The number of vulnerabilities purchased by its Zero Day Initiative increased in 2013, compared to the prior year, but remains below the purchase levels in 2010 and 2011. West argues that the trend is caused by critical vulnerabilities being sold elsewhere or hoarded by criminal and intelligence organizations.

[Private brokers sell zero-day bugs for anywhere between $40,000 and $160,000 -- and in some cases buyers could end up spending much more for lucrative targets, new analysis says. See Hacking The Zero-Day Vulnerability Market.]

Stefan Frei, research director with NSS Labs, a security information provider, says other players in the market could account for the decrease in both critical vulnerabilities and vulnerabilities sold to white-market bounty programs, such as ZDI. Private vendors, such as Revuln and Exodus Intelligence, are made up of researchers who contributed to HP's Zero Day Initiative and now are competing with the group, he says. In addition, an increasing number of software vendors are offering bounties, including a former notable holdout, Microsoft.

Other private buyers, such as government agencies, are also scooping up exploitable flaws, he says.

"This is stuff that would not pop up otherwise," Frei says. "I would not dare put a number on it, but there is a clear drift" of vulnerabilities to these other markets, he says.

Whether those vulnerabilities are critical or even deserve a critical rating is another point of contention. Only 50 to 60 "truly critical" vulnerabilities are found each year, argues Aaron Portnoy, former manager at HP's ZDI and now vice president of research for Exodus Intelligence. Only software issues that allow reliable remote exploitation should be considered critical, he says.

"I take issue with statements like that [about hundreds of critical flaws], in general," Portnoy says. "The main reason is because the rating system that we use for criticality in our industry is skewed. There really aren't that many vulnerabilities discovered in a year."

Portnoy and other researchers have taken issue with the CVSS as a measure of the severity of vulnerabilities. Last year, researchers criticized the system for its significant shortcomings, finding that the CVSS score for a particular vulnerability did not correlate strongly to whether an exploit was developed for the security issue. Moreover, different companies and vulnerability surveys had widely varying tallies for the number of vulnerabilities reported in any particular year.

HP acknowledged these shortcomings in its report. "While the public repositories provide a glance into the vulnerability landscape, it is limited to reporting those that are publicly disclosed or directly submitted to the organization," the company stated. "This leaves a silo-driven gap for any one organization's ability to speak to the security and vulnerability landscape as a whole."

Anecdotally, researchers are increasingly paid for their vulnerability research, as more bounty programs exist or have been established. Researchers' efforts to get paid for their discoveries and disclosures of significant software vulnerabilities have often fallen flat, but there are now far more opportunities to get some money from vendors, third-party bounty programs, or by selling to the gray market.

Data on the trend, however, is lacking. Gray market sales to governments and penetration testers, for example, appear to be holding steady and will continue to remain a minority of the market, says Adriel Desautels, CEO and manager at Netragard, a security services firm that also brokers vulnerability sales to a variety of undisclosed clients.

"The market goes up and down, and we grow in size, but that growth is not something that we can attribute to an overall market shift," he says.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Robert Lemos is a veteran technology journalist of more than 16 years and a former research engineer, writing articles that have appeared in Business Week, CIO Magazine, CNET News.com, Computing Japan, CSO Magazine, Dark Reading, eWEEK, InfoWorld, MIT's Technology Review, ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
Managing the interdependency between software and infrastructure is a thorny challenge. Often, it’s a “developers are from Mars, systems engineers are from Venus” situation.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-8243
Published: 2014-11-01
Linksys SMART WiFi firmware on EA2700 and EA3500 devices; before 2.1.41 build 162351 on E4200v2 and EA4500 devices; before 1.1.41 build 162599 on EA6200 devices; before 1.1.40 build 160989 on EA6300, EA6400, EA6500, and EA6700 devices; and before 1.1.42 build 161129 on EA6900 devices allows remote a...

CVE-2014-8244
Published: 2014-11-01
Linksys SMART WiFi firmware on EA2700 and EA3500 devices; before 2.1.41 build 162351 on E4200v2 and EA4500 devices; before 1.1.41 build 162599 on EA6200 devices; before 1.1.40 build 160989 on EA6300, EA6400, EA6500, and EA6700 devices; and before 1.1.42 build 161129 on EA6900 devices allows remote a...

CVE-2013-0334
Published: 2014-10-31
Bundler before 1.7, when multiple top-level source lines are used, allows remote attackers to install arbitrary gems by creating a gem with the same name as another gem in a different source.

CVE-2014-2334
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2335
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.