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

Intel: More Than 90% of Our Vulnerabilities Found via Research

Internal research and external bug-bounty programs combined to discover the vast majority of reported security issues in the company's software.

For the second year in a row, the vast majority of vulnerabilities — 92% — found in Intel's products came from the company's security investments, specifically internal research efforts and external bug bounties, the company stated in a new report, published today. 

Of the 231 vulnerabilities reported in Intel products in 2020, 109 issues (47%) were found by Intel employees, while 105 (45%) were reported by external researchers participating in a bug-bounty program, according to the company's "2020 Product Security" report. While the company did not detail how much it invested in the different programs, Intel did say the company paid out an average of $800,000 a year for bug bounties.

Related Content:

How Intel Has Responded to Spectre and Meltdown

Special Report: How IT Security Organizations Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem

New From The Edge: Cybercrime 'Help Wanted': Job Hunting on the Dark Web

The company plans to continue its multiprong approach to security, says Jerry Bryant, director of security communication in the Intel Platform Assurance and Security (PAS) group.

"Security isn't a one-time investment thing," he says. "You have to think about it more broadly from good security development practices, baking that into the mindset across your company, investing in vulnerability management processes and the ongoing security research into your products, both prerelease and shipping." 

The report highlights the growing importance of bug-bounty programs for application and software developers. Not even five years ago, many companies continued to debate the efficacy of bug-bounty programs, but most have come to value their relationships with external researchers. 

Intel started its own bug-bounty program in 2018, when the company also launched its Product Assurance and Security group. The effort has paid off. While about the same number of vulnerabilities were disclosed in the past two years through internal programs and external bug bounties, 2020 had a third more vulnerabilities reported through the bug-bounty program — 105, versus 70 in 2019. 

External researchers typically focused on software drivers, as opposed to looking for the more complex firmware or hardware vulnerabilities that tend of have more impact for the processing, networking, and graphics platforms at the heart of Intel's business. The company's internal researchers found 69% of firmware-related security issues and 57% of hardware issues, the report stated.

"[T]he bulk of externally found issues were in software consisting mainly of software utilities and software drivers for graphics, networking, and Bluetooth components," Intel stated in the report. "While these are important issues to address, our product firmware forms the basis of trust in our platforms and the data shows this is the primary focus of our internal security research."

Only 17 vulnerabilities were reported by researchers not with Intel or part of a bug-bounty program. Those researchers include Intel partners, customers, and organizations that could not seek bounty payments, the company said. 

The most vulnerabilities, 93, occurred in drivers and other software components, while 66 occurred in the firmware, and 58 affected a combination of firmware and software. The smallest number of vulnerabilities, 14, affected hardware, such as processors. Hardware vulnerabilities, such as the Spectre and Meltdown design flaws caused by overlooked issues in the branching speculative execution, are very hard to patch or mitigate after the product has been produced.

Overall, graphics components accounted for the largest portion of vulnerabilities, 22, with nearly half ranking as high severity. The most critical vulnerabilities occurred in the Intel Converged Security and Management Engine (CSME), which forms the basis of any Intel-based computing platform's root of trust, isolating its functions from the central processing unit (CPU), firmware or BIOS, and the operating system. 

In total, Intel platforms and software had six critical, 80 high, 131 medium, and 14 low-severity vulnerabilities in 2020. Intel found two of the critical and slightly more than half of the highly rated vulnerabilities, the report stated.

Intel plans to continue to invest in security, but the company did not have specific budget targets for its programs. Considering the increase in the number of vulnerabilities reported through bug bounties, the company may need to plan for rising external payments to researchers. 

"We don't think of it in terms of budget but in terms of more capability — whatever we need to scale to," Bryant says. "The Intel product assurance and security group is focused on things like SDL, offensive security research, vulnerability management. Things like that. Budget is not part of the report because it moves."

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
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-2021-27180
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
An issue was discovered in MDaemon before 20.0.4. There is Reflected XSS in Webmail (aka WorldClient). It can be exploited via a GET request. It allows performing any action with the privileges of the attacked user.
CVE-2021-27181
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
An issue was discovered in MDaemon before 20.0.4. Remote Administration allows an attacker to perform a fixation of the anti-CSRF token. In order to exploit this issue, the user has to click on a malicious URL provided by the attacker and successfully authenticate into the application. Having the va...
CVE-2021-27182
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
An issue was discovered in MDaemon before 20.0.4. There is an IFRAME injection vulnerability in Webmail (aka WorldClient). It can be exploited via an email message. It allows an attacker to perform any action with the privileges of the attacked user.
CVE-2021-27183
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
An issue was discovered in MDaemon before 20.0.4. Administrators can use Remote Administration to exploit an Arbitrary File Write vulnerability. An attacker is able to create new files in any location of the filesystem, or he may be able to modify existing files. This vulnerability may directly lead...
CVE-2021-29449
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
Pi-hole is a Linux network-level advertisement and Internet tracker blocking application. Multiple privilege escalation vulnerabilities were discovered in version 5.2.4 of Pi-hole core. See the referenced GitHub security advisory for details.