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

8/31/2010
02:04 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

IBM Corrects Unpatched Vulnerability Numbers After Google Challenge

X-Force Team at IBM revises data on vendors with most unpatched bugs in recent IBM X-Force 2010 Mid-Year Trend and Risk Report

Google is no longer the software vendor with the highest percentage of unpatched critical and high-risk bugs as of the first half of this year: IBM now ranks first.

After Google and another as-yet unnamed software vendor challenged IBM's findings that showed Google with the most unpatched critical and high vulnerability disclosures, IBM revised this data set found in its IBM X-Force 2010 Mid-Year Trend and Risk Report, which it released this week.

IBM didn't name names, but said two software vendors had contacted the company about the severity and unpatched vulnerabilities data included in the X-Force report. "As a consequence of this feedback, we have manually reassessed the CVSS scoring, remedy information, and vendor information for every vulnerability that impacted the percentages that appear in this chart," blogged Tom Cross, manager of XForce Research, over the weekend.

In the original version of the report, Google was shown with 33 percent of its critical and high-risk (and disclosed) vulnerabilities unpatched, followed by IBM, with 29 percent, Oracle, with 22 percent. But with IBM's revisions, Google's numbers are now zero percent: no unpatched vulnerabilities nor any critical or high-risk ones in the first half of the year. And Sun went from 24 percent of unpatched bugs of all severity to 8 percent, and from 9 percent unpatched critical and high-risk ones to zero percent. IBM now shows the most critical and high-risk bugs without a patch.

Microsoft also fared better in the corrected data, with 7 percent unpatched critical and high-risk vulnerabilities versus 11 percent in the older version. Its percentage of bugs of all levels of severity stayed the same at 23 percent.

Google spoke out today about the changes to the IBM report. "We questioned a number of surprising findings concerning Google's vulnerability rate and response record, and after discussions with IBM, we discovered a number of errors that had important implications for the report's conclusions. IBM worked together with us and promptly issued a correction to address the inaccuracies," blogged Adam Mein, a member of the Google security team, who noted that Google's security response team prioritizes the handling of bug reports.

Mein says Google was "confused" about IBM's data showing that 33 percent of critical and high-risk bugs discovered in Google software had not been fixed. "We learned after investigating that the 33% figure referred to a single unpatched vulnerability out of a total of three -- and importantly, the one item that was considered unpatched was only mistakenly considered a security vulnerability due to a terminology mix-up. As a result, the true unpatched rate for these high-risk bugs is 0 out of 2, or 0%."

Both Google and IBM pointed to the lack of standards for reporting vulnerabilities as a major contributing factor to vulnerability database discrepancies. "Efforts are currently underway within the software industry to develop standards for reporting of vulnerability and remedy information," IBM's Cross blogged. "We believe that those standardization efforts hold the key to making sure that consumers always have the latest information from software vendors about vulnerability disclosures affecting their products."

Google's Mein said there must be more regular collaboration between organizations that compile vulnerability databases and software vendors. He pointed to inconsistencies in the way vendors disclose bugs and employ different classifications for severity. "This makes the process of measuring the number of total vulnerabilities assigned to a given vendor much more difficult," he blogged.

"As a first step, database compilers should reach out to vendors they plan to cover in order to devise a sustainable solution for both parties that will allow for a more consistent flow of information. Another big improvement would be increased transparency on the part of the compilers — for example, the inclusion of more hard data, the methodology behind the data gathering, and caveat language acknowledging the limitations of the presented data," Mein said in his post. "We hope to see these common research practices employed more broadly to increase the quality and usefulness of vulnerability trend reports."

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.

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
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-3154
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
CRLF injection vulnerability in Zend\Mail (Zend_Mail) in Zend Framework before 1.12.12, 2.x before 2.3.8, and 2.4.x before 2.4.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via CRLF sequences in the header of an email.
CVE-2019-17190
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
A Local Privilege Escalation issue was discovered in Avast Secure Browser 76.0.1659.101. The vulnerability is due to an insecure ACL set by the AvastBrowserUpdate.exe (which is running as NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM) when AvastSecureBrowser.exe checks for new updates. When the update check is triggered, the...
CVE-2014-8161
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
PostgreSQL before 9.0.19, 9.1.x before 9.1.15, 9.2.x before 9.2.10, 9.3.x before 9.3.6, and 9.4.x before 9.4.1 allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive column values by triggering constraint violation and then reading the error message.
CVE-2014-9481
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
The Scribunto extension for MediaWiki allows remote attackers to obtain the rollback token and possibly other sensitive information via a crafted module, related to unstripping special page HTML.
CVE-2015-0241
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
The to_char function in PostgreSQL before 9.0.19, 9.1.x before 9.1.15, 9.2.x before 9.2.10, 9.3.x before 9.3.6, and 9.4.x before 9.4.1 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a (1) large number of digits when processing a numeric ...