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

8/4/2010
07:55 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Researchers Throw Down Vulnerability-Disclosure Gauntlet

TippingPoint's Zero Day Initiative (ZDI) program institutes deadline of six months for vendors to fix bugs -- or else the bugs get published

First it was Google drawing a line in the sand with a 60-day deadline for vendors to fix vulnerabilities it finds in their products before going public. Now it's TippingPoint's Zero Day Initiative (ZDI), which officially announced today it has set a six-month time frame from when it reports a bug to a vendor until it goes public with it.

ZDI, which historically has worked with vendors in not disclosing any bugs it finds until they patch them, says some vendors are getting a little too comfortable with that open-ended agreement. ZDI has 31 high-risk vulnerabilities on its docket that have been awaiting patches for more than a year: "We have some bulletins that are 3 years old," says Aaron Portnoy, manager of security researcher for ZDI. "The longer we sit on these, the longer people are exposed to [the threats]. Letting vendors take as much time as they needed, they took more time than they needed ... and there were no repercussions for them, but more work for us."

Aside from Google and now ZDI, Rapid7 also recently set a deadline for bug disclosures of 15 days: If a vendor hasn't patched it by then, Rapid7 reports the bug to CERT, which gives vendors 45 days to patch from the initial report date before it goes public.

But Microsoft has stood firm in its refusal to place a timetable on when it issues patches for reported bugs. Mike Reavey, director of Microsoft Security Response Center, contends that patch deadlines aren't the answer because it's not a "one-size-fits-all" time frame for fixing vulnerabilities -- some just take longer to fix than others. It's a delicate balance between quality and timeliness given that Microsoft puts the patches through a hefty testing process before issuing them, he says.

ZDI's new policy applies to currently outstanding vulnerabilities it has reported to vendors, as well as any it finds from now on. If the vendor doesn't patch by the six-month mark, then ZDI will publish a "limited" advisory that includes mitigation options for users. But ZDI says it will allow vendors to ask for extensions for difficult patches. "If any vulnerability is given an extension we plan on publishing the communication we've had with the vendor regarding the issue once it is patched," Portnoy blogged today.

Google called it irresponsible for vendors to leave a flaw unfixed for a long period of time -- this can drag on for years sometimes, Google researchers say. So from now on, any serious bug they report must be fixed within the 60-day deadline; if the vendor doesn't fix it within that time frame, Google will publish an analysis of the bug as well as any workarounds.

HD Moore, chief security officer at Rapid7 and chief architect of Metasploit, says you can tell within 60 days whether a vendor is going to prioritize a fix, anyway. "ZDI got fed up ... For them, it was a big drain to manage and keep track of them all," Moore says.

A big trend in vulnerability discovery of late is that, increasingly, different researchers are coincidentally finding the same bugs, some within weeks of one another, so the lines are blurring, researchers say.

What about the risk of bad guys getting hold of the unpatched bug once it's published? ZDI, Google, and Rapid7 researchers contend that holding off on fixing a bug is riskier, especially since many newly discovered bugs have already been found by other researchers. A deadline for vendors is an attempt to close the gap between discovery and patching, they say.

"I hope more companies will do this ... with a fixed disclosure schedule," Moore says. "Then vendors have to take it seriously to go out and fix it."

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 ...