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

10/10/2013
02:44 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Google To Reward Fixes For Open Source Software

Google expands its bug bounty program, plans to pay programmers who help patch the open-source projects it cares about.

Google Nexus 7, Chromecast: Visual Tour
Google Nexus 7, Chromecast: Visual Tour
(click image for larger view)
Google is expanding the scope of the financial rewards it offers to security researchers who identify errors in software code. To complement its existing Vulnerability Reward Program for its Web applications and Chrome browser, the company has introduced Patch Rewards, a program that goes beyond flaw finding to flaw fixing: It will pay hackers for code contributions that get applied to certain open-source projects.

Michal Zalewski, a security engineer at Google, characterizes the initiative as an effort "to improve the security of key third-party software critical to the health of the entire Internet."

The program covers a limited set of open-source projects: core infrastructure network services (OpenSSH, BIND, ISC DHCP); core infrastructure image parsers (libjpeg, libjpeg-turbo, libpng, giflib); the open-source foundations of Google Chrome (Chromium and Blink — sorry, WebKit); and other important libraries (OpenSSL, zlib).

In time, Zalewski says the program will be extended to include: popular Web servers (Apache httpd, lighttpd, nginx); SMTP services (Sendmail, Postfix, Exim); toolchain security improvements for GCC, binutils, and llvm; and OpenVPN.

[ Will doctors soon wear Google Glass? Read Google Glass Enters Operating Room. ]

Patches that have been accepted by project maintainers and merged into the project repository qualify for a reward ranging from $500 to $3,133.70, to be determined by Google's rewards panel, based on the sophistication and significance of the patch.

For open-source contributors who have grown accustomed to working for self-satisfaction, karma and gratitude, Google's largesse will probably be appreciated. But it's a pittance given the prices being paid for bugs these days, unless Yahoo's generosity is the yardstick.

Last month, High-Tech Bridge, a security company based in Switzerland, reported four security vulnerabilities to Yahoo. Yahoo responded by offering the company $25 for two of them, or $12.50 per accepted vulnerability. Adding insult to injury, the funds were offered in the form of credit in the Yahoo Company Store.

High-Tech Bridge subsequently published a blog post to shame Yahoo and the ploy worked: Yahoo revised its bug bounty program and now offers rewards of $150 to $15,000.

But that's still significantly less than what Microsoft is paying through its Mitigation Bypass Bounty and BlueHat Bonus for Defense Program: up to $100,000 for bypass techniques, with a bonus of $50,000 for applicable defense techniques. Last week, Microsoft said it would pay $100,000 to James Forshaw, a security researcher with Context Information Security, for the discovery of a new mitigation bypass technique.

A UC Berkeley study of vulnerability reward programs, released earlier this year, found that bug bounties are cost-efficient. Google's program, the paper says, costs the company roughly $500 per day, about the same as a full-time security engineer paid $100,000, with 50% overhead. But Google's program leads to the identification of far more flaws than a single researcher could find.

Other companies appear to have caught on, with dozens now offering rewards to security researchers.

Technology companies might have to go higher still to outbid the U.S. government. In August, The Washington Post reported that so far this year, the National Security Agency has spent more than $25 million buying software vulnerabilities from security vendors. A report last year in Forbes said zero-day vulnerabilities ranged in price from $5,000 to $250,000.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Drew Conry-Murray
50%
50%
Drew Conry-Murray,
User Rank: Ninja
10/11/2013 | 12:05:06 AM
re: Google To Reward Fixes For Open Source Software
This seems like a sensible evolution of the bug bounty program. Knowing the vulnerability exists is useful, but having a patch is even better.
Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Lessons from the NSA: Know Your Assets
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  12/12/2019
4 Tips to Run Fast in the Face of Digital Transformation
Shane Buckley, President & Chief Operating Officer, Gigamon,  12/9/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19807
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-15
In the Linux kernel before 5.3.11, sound/core/timer.c has a use-after-free caused by erroneous code refactoring, aka CID-e7af6307a8a5. This is related to snd_timer_open and snd_timer_close_locked. The timeri variable was originally intended to be for a newly created timer instance, but was used for ...
CVE-2014-8650
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-15
python-requests-Kerberos through 0.5 does not handle mutual authentication
CVE-2014-3536
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-15
CFME (CloudForms Management Engine) 5: RHN account information is logged to top_output.log during registration
CVE-2014-3643
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-15
jersey: XXE via parameter entities not disabled by the jersey SAX parser
CVE-2014-3652
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-15
JBoss KeyCloak: Open redirect vulnerability via failure to validate the redirect URL.