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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

5/24/2017
10:00 AM
Lawrence Munro
Lawrence Munro
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

4 Reasons the Vulnerability Disclosure Process Stalls

The relationship between manufacturers and researchers is often strained. Here's why, along with some resources to help.

The relationship between a manufacturer or vendor and security researchers can be filled with tension and unease, and it's most often put to the test during the vulnerability disclosure process. Although their intentions are pure, researchers often feel they are being shut out of the process, while vendors may see disclosure deadlines as a threat from researchers looking to produce headlines.

This difficult relationship is further strained as the Internet of Things (IoT) market continues to grow at a rapid clip. In a market that is expected to increase from $57 billion in 2016 to $158 billion by 2021, more manufacturers are eagerly looking to cash in on this trend. Yet security is often an afterthought in the development of these new smart devices.    

To keep these connected devices and their users secure, security companies are holding manufacturers accountable. Recently, Trustwave's Penetration Testing team within SpiderLabs discovered a backdoor in nearly all devices produced by voice-over-IP specialist DBLTek. When the SpiderLabs team disclosed the discovery, DBLTek responded by further burying the backdoor rather than closing it, then proceeded to cut off contact with Trustwave.

This experience is not uncommon, but, fortunately, the proportion of vulnerabilities disclosed in coordination with third parties rose from 26% in 2012 to 45% percent in 2016, and coordinated disclosures now outnumber uncoordinated ones by a ratio of more than 3 to 1, according to a report by Risk Based Security.

Here are the top four reasons the disclosure process hits roadblocks:

An Unclear Path: As simple as it may sound, one of the biggest issues in the disclosure process is unclear guidelines regarding to whom one should disclose the issue. This is the first step researchers take after a vulnerability is found, but organizations often lack a proper internal path for these types of escalations; and if they do have one, it often isn't easy for researchers to find.

Language Barriers: As a result of low barriers to entry into the IoT market, the number of manufacturers and companies producing and selling IoT devices is rising around the world. As global production rises, the language barrier among vendor, manufacturer, and researcher becomes a greater problem. The breakdown in communication often adds significant delays in the disclosure process, prolonging the life of the exploit and continuing to put the end user at risk.   

Unskilled Personnel: Organizations seeking to cash in on a new IT trend will often hire third-party developers to produce and code their products. However, once their products are up and running, these organizations will let their developer teams go, turning all of their efforts to marketing and sales. Once the developers are gone and a vulnerability is found, there is often no one left on staff well equipped enough to understand the disclosure process, let alone skilled enough to issue a patch.

Research from Trustwave further supports the issue of limited resources on IT teams to ensure proper security measures are in place. A study of 147 IT security decision makers and influencers, "Money, Minds and the Masses: A Study of Cybersecurity Resource Limitations," found 57% of respondents report finding and recruiting IT talent to be their biggest challenge. In fact, only 8% believe three-quarters or more of their IT staff have the specialized skills and training needed to handle complex issues. There's no doubt that this skills shortage becomes a major hindrance on the path of disclosing vulnerabilities.   

Fear of Bad Publicity: One of the biggest fears companies face is becoming the next big (bad) headline, or their small business going under because of negative publicity. 

When contacted from outside sources, vendors are often quick to panic over the possibility that word has gotten out that one of their products contains a vulnerability. This can lead an organization to completely bury the news and, in extreme cases, cease all communication with outside researchers.

It is vital for companies to realize that it's nearly impossible to create products without vulnerabilities; even some of the most reputable firms have released products with severe vulnerabilities, but how they respond is what truly matters. 

Moving Forward
The disclosure process may seem like a gray area to most organizations, but there are several resources available that provide best practices. For example, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration — an agency located within the Commerce Department — has created a provisional draft of "Guidelines and Practices for Multi-Party Vulnerability Coordination" in order to establish a broad, shared understanding of overlapping interests between security researchers and vendors, and to encourage increased collaboration.  

In the continued effort to help move this process forward, the Library of Congress has issued new exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), creating protections for Americans to hack their own devices without fear that the DMCA's ban on evading protections on copyrighted systems would allow manufacturers to sue them.

The simple act of implementing openness and responsiveness in the vulnerability disclosure processes has allowed people to report things that very well could have had life-altering consequences for those interacting with everyday products. 

Related Content:

 

Lawrence Munro works with Trustwave's elite team of forensic investigators, researchers, and ethical hackers, SpiderLabs, as worldwide vice president of SpiderLabs at Trustwave, responsible for all penetration testing functions within the practice. Lawrence has over 12 years ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
5/24/2017 | 12:18:56 PM
Fear of Bad Publicity
I can understand the fear of bad publicity, but bad publicity will become exponentially worse if some entity outside of the company discloses the vulnerability.
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-30477
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-15
An issue was discovered in Zulip Server before 3.4. A bug in the implementation of replies to messages sent by outgoing webhooks to private streams meant that an outgoing webhook bot could be used to send messages to private streams that the user was not intended to be able to send messages to.
CVE-2021-30478
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-15
An issue was discovered in Zulip Server before 3.4. A bug in the implementation of the can_forge_sender permission (previously is_api_super_user) resulted in users with this permission being able to send messages appearing as if sent by a system bot, including to other organizations hosted by the sa...
CVE-2021-30479
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-15
An issue was discovered in Zulip Server before 3.4. A bug in the implementation of the all_public_streams API feature resulted in guest users being able to receive message traffic to public streams that should have been only accessible to members of the organization.
CVE-2021-30487
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-15
In the topic moving API in Zulip Server 3.x before 3.4, organization administrators were able to move messages to streams in other organizations hosted by the same Zulip installation.
CVE-2020-36288
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-15
The issue navigation and search view in Jira Server and Data Center before version 8.5.12, from version 8.6.0 before version 8.13.4, and from version 8.14.0 before version 8.15.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript via a DOM Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability caused ...