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
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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 10/23/2020
Modern Day Insider Threat: Network Bugs That Are Stealing Your Data
David Pearson, Principal Threat Researcher,  10/21/2020
Are You One COVID-19 Test Away From a Cybersecurity Disaster?
Alan Brill, Senior Managing Director, Cyber Risk Practice, Kroll,  10/21/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-27743
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
libtac in pam_tacplus through 1.5.1 lacks a check for a failure of RAND_bytes()/RAND_pseudo_bytes(). This could lead to use of a non-random/predictable session_id.
CVE-2020-1915
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
An out-of-bounds read in the JavaScript Interpreter in Facebook Hermes prior to commit 8cb935cd3b2321c46aa6b7ed8454d95c75a7fca0 allows attackers to cause a denial of service attack or possible further memory corruption via crafted JavaScript. Note that this is only exploitable if the application usi...
CVE-2020-26878
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
Ruckus through 1.5.1.0.21 is affected by remote command injection. An authenticated user can submit a query to the API (/service/v1/createUser endpoint), injecting arbitrary commands that will be executed as root user via web.py.
CVE-2020-26879
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
Ruckus vRioT through 1.5.1.0.21 has an API backdoor that is hardcoded into validate_token.py. An unauthenticated attacker can interact with the service API by using a backdoor value as the Authorization header.
CVE-2020-15272
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
In the git-tag-annotation-action (open source GitHub Action) before version 1.0.1, an attacker can execute arbitrary (*) shell commands if they can control the value of [the `tag` input] or manage to alter the value of [the `GITHUB_REF` environment variable]. The problem has been patched in version ...