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

5/29/2013
06:29 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Google Sets New 'Aggressive' 7-Day Deadline For Vendors To Reveal Or Fix Zero-Day Bugs Under Attack

New policy narrows window for software vendors' public response to zero-day bugs discovered by Google researchers

Google today put the squeeze on software vendors with a new policy for vulnerability disclosure that allows its researchers to provide details on zero-day bugs they find within seven days if the affected vendor hasn't provided an advisory or a patch.

Chris Evans and Drew Hintz, security engineers with Google, made the announcement in a blog post, noting that Google's researchers recently discovered attacks using a zero-day in another unnamed vendor's software. "We recently discovered that attackers are actively targeting a previously unknown and unpatched vulnerability in software belonging to another company. This isn’t an isolated incident -- on a semi-regular basis, Google security researchers uncover real-world exploitation of publicly unknown (“zero-day”) vulnerabilities. We always report these cases to the affected vendor immediately, and we work closely with them to drive the issue to resolution," the Googlers said in their post.

Vulnerability disclosure long has been a hot button topic, with Google over the past few years pushing hard on vendors to more quickly warn users and fix new flaws, and software giant Microsoft standing by its policy that vulnerability fixes should not be assigned deadlines. Microsoft contends that patching is a delicate balance between quality and timeliness that can't be put on a specific deadline.

But Google is now dramatically narrowing the patch window for the most dangerous zero-day bugs it discovers and get used in attacks in the wild.

"Our standing recommendation is that companies should fix critical vulnerabilities within 60 days -- or, if a fix is not possible, they should notify the public about the risk and offer workarounds. We encourage researchers to publish their findings if reported issues will take longer to patch. Based on our experience, however, we believe that more urgent action -- within 7 days -- is appropriate for critical vulnerabilities under active exploitation," the Google researchers say. "The reason for this special designation is that each day an actively exploited vulnerability remains undisclosed to the public and unpatched, more computers will be compromised."

They acknowledge that a one-week turnaround is tight and may not work for some vendors. And Google itself will follow the same timeline in fixing its own bugs, they say.

"Seven days is an aggressive timeline and may be too short for some vendors to update their products, but it should be enough time to publish advice about possible mitigations, such as temporarily disabling a service, restricting access, or contacting the vendor for more information," they say. "As a result, after 7 days have elapsed without a patch or advisory, we will support researchers making details available so that users can take steps to protect themselves. By holding ourselves to the same standard, we hope to improve both the state of web security and the coordination of vulnerability management."

Google security engineers in 2010 called it "irresponsible" for a software bug to remain unfixed over long periods of time -- sometimes years. They announced back then that they would set disclosure deadlines for serious bugs they found, and if the affected vendor didn't fix the bug by that date, Google would publish an analysis of it and any workarounds.

Today the engineers say it's becoming even more urgent to fix bad bugs faster. "Often, we find that zero-day vulnerabilities are used to target a limited subset of people. In many cases, this targeting actually makes the attack more serious than a broader attack, and more urgent to resolve quickly. Political activists are frequent targets, and the consequences of being compromised can have real safety implications in parts of the world," the said in their post.

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

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. 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
10 Ways to Keep a Rogue RasPi From Wrecking Your Network
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  7/10/2019
The Security of Cloud Applications
Hillel Solow, CTO and Co-founder, Protego,  7/11/2019
Where Businesses Waste Endpoint Security Budgets
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "Jim, stop pretending you're drowning in tickets."
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-3571
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-16
An input validation issue affected WhatsApp Desktop versions prior to 0.3.3793 which allows malicious clients to send files to users that would be displayed with a wrong extension.
CVE-2019-6160
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-16
A vulnerability in various versions of Iomega and LenovoEMC NAS products could allow an unauthenticated user to access files on NAS shares via the API.
CVE-2019-9700
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-16
Norton Password Manager, prior to 6.3.0.2082, may be susceptible to an address spoofing issue. This type of issue may allow an attacker to disguise their origin IP address in order to obfuscate the source of network traffic.
CVE-2019-12990
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-16
Citrix SD-WAN 10.2.x before 10.2.3 and NetScaler SD-WAN 10.0.x before 10.0.8 allow Directory Traversal.
CVE-2019-12991
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-16
Citrix SD-WAN 10.2.x before 10.2.3 and NetScaler SD-WAN 10.0.x before 10.0.8 have Improper Input Validation (issue 5 of 6).