Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Google Paid Over $1.5 Million In Bug Bounties In 2014
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2015 | 7:10:57 PM
Re: Google so great?
@Marilyn: Indeed.  On the other hand, there is computer science research that indicates that a software project can only have a maximum number of "useful" reviewers -- typically between two and four -- before slamming into a brick wall of diminishing returns.  So, to play devil's advocate with myself, maybe that $1.5 mil. on the front end would have been a waste.

The other problem is that security review is less exciting and interesting than feature review -- a more significant problem that could use a solution.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
2/3/2015 | 8:47:25 AM
Re: Google so great?
There is definitely more that can always be done in browser application security (and elsewhere). I wonder how far Google's $1.5 million payout  in bug bounties would have gone on the front end  versus the back end of the process...
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/31/2015 | 9:30:43 PM
Re: Google so great?
Oh, don't geet me wrong.  I applaud Google's bug bounty program.  Collaboration is key in cybersecurity.  Nonetheless, with the sheer amount of bugs being found and bug bounties being paid out here, it strongly suggests that Google's engineers aren't quite pulling their security weight.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/31/2015 | 12:37:57 PM
Re: Google so great?
I would prefer that the incentive program be the case because not even the Google Engineers can anticipate everything. Having your product tested by a larger group will ensure that more vectors are tested. With technology increasing its capabilities quickly, its not like Google has a finite checklist that they can run through every time. The bug possiblities change with the type of software.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/30/2015 | 10:46:49 PM
Google so great?
Maybe this is just the cynic in me, but at a certain point, with all of these bug bounties being paid out, one has to question the quality of the hiring and/or corporate culture at Google.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.