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

09:45 AM
Connect Directly

Big Bucks Bug-Brokering Program Shuttered

'Cadillac' buyers were taking too long to close the deal

It turns out that the high-end zero-day exploit market isn’t so lucrative anymore: Netragard LLC as of yesterday had shut down its bug-brokering program aimed at getting researchers big bucks -- anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 -- for exploits they developed.

Adriel Desautels, who founded the SNOSoft research team that ran the so-called Exploit Acquisition Program, says Netragard’s zero-day buyer clients had begun taking an excessive amount of time to close the deal and pay for the bugs they had either commissioned Netragard to get from researchers, or that Netragard had sold to them on behalf of researchers.

“An exploit has a short shelf life,” says Desautels, chief technology officer for security firm Netragard. “To successfully broker exploits and be able to broker to a buyer, we need to be able to move within one week or one month… three months can be okay, depending on the item.”

The last straw was a recent deal that went unpaid for seven months and left the researchers and Netragard empty-handed. “The buyer just didn’t get its act together fast enough, and seven months elapsed and suddenly all of the issues were suddenly fixed,” so the zero-day exploit was basically worthless, he says.

Desautels can’t reveal any of the businesses who were buying exploits through the Netragard program, but he says they were legitimate U.S.-based organizations, many of which he had known for 15 years. He first launched the bug broker business in 2000 under the name Secure Network Operations; Netragard took it over a year ago.

He says the high-end, Cadillac-type bug brokering market isn’t “viable” unless the buyers move more quickly to close the deals. “The slowdown killed the whole program,” he says. The average transaction time with a buyer jumped from a month or less to four months, and that’s too long, he says.

HD Moore, director of security research for BreakingPoint Systems, says the $50,000 price tag that was often associated with Netragard’s bug-buying program was too high. “Personally, I think $50K for a bug was ridiculous and the bottom was going to drop out anyway,” Moore says. “[But] the $10,000- to $15,000 exploit market is alive and well.”

The danger, of course, is that researchers who had been working with Netragard may get tempted to peddle their zero-days on the dark side, where cybercriminals may be willing to pay top dollar. “I absolutely worry” about that, Desautels says. “The threat that could be created by these items can be significant.”

The high-end black market is alive and well. Moore (who doesn’t buy or sell vulnerabilities) says he was recently approached by a sketchy potential buyer interested in a browser vulnerability he had posted in the Month of Browser Bugs.

“I was approached about a browser exploit by a firm that said they wanted to do training and they ‘needed’ a zero-day exploit to verify it,” he says. “I went through enough of the motions to check it out, mostly because I was curious how it worked. Even though this person had a real business, the reason for wanting the exploit didn't make sense, but it was easily ten times the price that iDefense or ZDI would have offered.”

iDefense, ZDI, and Immunity Inc., for instance, each run their own bug-buying programs, where they purchase vulnerabilities for internal use. Immunity rolls the exploits it buys into its penetration testing tools, for example.

"Immunity buys a lot of vulnerabilities. We also find that people who are interested in selling their information want lots of different ways to do so,” says David Aitel, CTO of Immunity. "For example, you may not be able to get an exclusive license to information. Lots of people sell to Immunity who do not want Immunity to handle going to the vendor for them the way TippingPoint or iDefense would. Flexibility is key.”

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

  • BreakingPoint Systems
  • Immunity Inc.

    Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
    Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
    Architectural Analysis IDs 78 Specific Risks in Machine-Learning Systems
    Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  2/13/2020
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Current Issue
    6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
    This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
    Flash Poll
    How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
    How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
    The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    archive_read_support_format_rar5.c in libarchive before 3.4.2 attempts to unpack a RAR5 file with an invalid or corrupted header (such as a header size of zero), leading to a SIGSEGV or possibly unspecified other impact.
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    A flaw was found in mod_auth_openidc before version 2.4.1. An open redirect issue exists in URLs with a slash and backslash at the beginning.
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    The Linux kernel from v2.3.36 before v2.6.39 allows local unprivileged users to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering creation of PTE pages.
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) and cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Axous 1.1.1 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add an administrator account via an addnew action to admin/administrators_add.php; or (2) c...
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in the __dn_expand function in network/dn_expand.c in musl libc 1.1x before 1.1.2 and 0.9.13 through 1.0.3 allow remote attackers to (1) have unspecified impact via an invalid name length in a DNS response or (2) cause a denial of service (crash) via an invalid ...