Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 1st Jun 2013 18:43 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Google is changing its disclosure policy for zero-day exploits - both in their own software as in that of others - from 60 days do 7 days. "Seven days is an aggressive timeline and may be too short for some vendors to update their products, but it should be enough time to publish advice about possible mitigations, such as temporarily disabling a service, restricting access, or contacting the vendor for more information. As a result, after 7 days have elapsed without a patch or advisory, we will support researchers making details available so that users can take steps to protect themselves. By holding ourselves to the same standard, we hope to improve both the state of web security and the coordination of vulnerability management." I support this 100%. It will force notoriously slow-responding companies - let's not mention any names - to be quicker about helping their customers. Google often uncovers vulnerabilities in other people's software (e.g. half of patches fixed on some Microsoft 'patch Tuesdays' are uncovered by Google), so this could have a big impact.
Permalink for comment 563506
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by lucas_maximus on Mon 3rd Jun 2013 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

A bug is not the same as a critical security vulnerability. If you lump them together, then it's you who has no clue.

Since we are talking about software, most would consider it a software defect which is more commonly known as a bug. Sorry you are being a pedantic dick-piece.

Security vulnerabilities have high priorities and just like bugs are classified Minor, Moderate, Major and Critical.

I've had to patch a few critical security vulnerabilities. The total response time for them ranges 8-72 hours, including QA. A week to patch, or even put out an advisory, is exceptionally generous

But you still have to go through a change management process.

Also you make no mention of whether you actually created the patch, deployed it or the complexity.

i.e. Fixing an SQL injection vunerability is relatively easy compared to something like patching a vunerability in some critical part of the OS.

I can claim to have fixed critical security vunerabilities when all I really did was change a particular procedure to use parameterised queries and a SPROC.

Edited 2013-06-03 11:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3