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.

Mobile

12/15/2017
11:02 AM
50%
50%

Mobile Device Makers Increasingly Embrace Bug Bounty Programs

Samsung is the latest to join a small group of smartphone makers to cast their net wide on catching vulnerabilities in their devices.

With the rise of mobile threats and ubiquitous use of smartphones, mobile device makers are increasingly throwing their resources toward bug bounty programs to shore up the security of the devices.

Samsung, which holds the largest market share for Android devices, launched a bug bounty program earlier this year, offering up to $200,000 per vulnerability discovered, depending on its severity. It joined Apple, which launched its bug bounty program in 2016, as well as Google, which kicked off its Android Security Rewards Program in 2015. Silent Circle, which offers Blackphone, was the first mobile company to hold a bug bounty back in 2014.

"Is this a sign that mobile device makers are taking security more seriously? Absolutely," says Alex Rice, co-founder and chief technology officer of HackerOne. "It rises the tide for everyone and the ones that don't do it will look like outliers."

Bug bounties, which reward ethical hackers for finding vulnerabilities in software and hardware, have been around since Netscape kicked off the first one in 1995, but only recently have mobile device makers joined the pack.

Bug bounty programs can be offered and managed by companies that want to find vulnerabilities in their own products, or can be outsourced to a bug bounty company, such as HackerOne or Bugcrowd, to manage. Some bug bounty programs are public, while others are private invite-only affairs.

Catalyst for Change

It has taken mobile device makers awhile to offer bug bounty programs because they have had to wait for the mobile ecosystem to mature, Rice says.

"Mobile device makers are inter-connected with other partners," Rice explains. "They don't have control over the entire attack surface … If you're the manufacturer, you want to only offer a bug bounty program for something you can fix."

But with more partners in the mobile device stack offering bug bounty programs, such as chipset maker Qualcomm and Google's Android, it is easier for mobile device manufacturers to do the same, he says.

"Although only vulnerabilities that are specific to Samsung mobile devices or its apps are eligible for its program, at least now they have a cohesive story to where they can redirect [bug hunters] to other partners in their stack."

Another challenge for mobile bug bounty programs is finding enough researchers to participate in the programs, says Casey Ellis, founder and chief technology officer of Bugcrowd.

Three or four years ago, Bugcrowd had to inform and solicit the ethical hacker community to focus on mobile devices and to get in early on the ground floor, Ellis recalls. But, in some respects, it has been a tough sell.

"Mobile devices are harder targets than web and mobile apps, so in the bounty context, the hacker return on investment can draw folks away from them. That said, it’s an extremely valuable skill set and a rapidly growing attack surface," Ellis notes.

Mobile bug bounty hunters also face a challenge in getting access to all of the components in a device, which adds another layer of complexity and work, Rice says.

Hard Money, Soft Money

A discovery of a hardware vulnerability tends to pay out more than a software flaw in bug bounty programs, say bug bounty experts.

"Finding vulnerabilities in hardware often requires more research, time, and a rarer set of skills than bug finding in applications," Ellis says. "Because of this, hardware bugs are typically priced higher to reflect their impact and to incentivize talented researchers to join the hunt."

Rice noted vulnerabilities that allow remote code execution in trust environments also tend to yield the largest bounty payments.

Although Samsung, Google, and Apple all offer bounty rewards upwards of $200,000, depending on the severity of the vulnerabilities discovered, a HackerOne report notes the average payout for mobile critical vulnerabilities ranges from $383 per bug for the telecom industry to $2,015 for the technology industry.

"I expect to see the amount of bounties rise," Rice says. "I predict we'll see more players in the future and more coverage with the bounty programs for mobile devices and apps."

Related Content:

Dawn Kawamoto is an Associate Editor for Dark Reading, where she covers cybersecurity news and trends. She is an award-winning journalist who has written and edited technology, management, leadership, career, finance, and innovation stories for such publications as CNET's ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
Unreasonable Security Best Practices vs. Good Risk Management
Jack Freund, Director, Risk Science at RiskLens,  11/13/2019
Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos
Ariel Zeitlin, Chief Technology Officer & Co-Founder, Guardicore,  11/13/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2016-5285
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
Null pointer dereference vulnerability exists in K11_SignWithSymKey / ssl3_ComputeRecordMACConstantTime in NSS before 3.26, which causes the TLS/SSL server using NSS to crash.
CVE-2009-5047
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
Jetty 6.x before 6.1.22 suffers from an escape sequence injection vulnerability from two different vectors: 1) "Cookie Dump Servlet" and 2) Http Content-Length header. 1) A POST request to the form at "/test/cookie/" with the "Age" parameter set to a string throws a &qu...
CVE-2013-4584
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
Perdition before 2.2 may have weak security when handling outbound connections, caused by an error in the STARTTLS IMAP and POP server. ssl_outgoing_ciphers not being applied to STARTTLS connections
CVE-2013-7087
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
ClamAV before 0.97.7 has WWPack corrupt heap memory
CVE-2013-7088
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
ClamAV before 0.97.7 has buffer overflow in the libclamav component