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
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
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.
RyanSepe
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
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.
Marilyn Cohodas
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
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.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-42247
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
pfSense v2.5.2 was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the browser.php component. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a file name.
CVE-2022-41443
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
phpipam v1.5.0 was discovered to contain a header injection vulnerability via the component /admin/subnets/ripe-query.php.
CVE-2022-33882
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
Under certain conditions, an attacker could create an unintended sphere of control through a vulnerability present in file delete operation in Autodesk desktop app (ADA). An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2022-42306
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 8.2 and related Veritas products. An attacker with local access can send a crafted packet to pbx_exchange during registration and cause a NULL pointer exception, effectively crashing the pbx_exchange process.
CVE-2022-42307
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 10.0.0.1 and related Veritas products. The NetBackup Primary server is vulnerable to an XML External Entity (XXE) Injection attack through the DiscoveryService service.