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 563513
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 3rd Jun 2013 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

That is - for a fact - not true. Design flaws are not bugs. A lot of security vulnerabilities are and were not bugs, but a perfectly correct implementations of designs and requirements.

The mistake you made is in assuming that you're both talking about the same classification of "bug". He obviously used the word questionably, and you called him out on it. It is though even more obvious that he didn't mean a run of the mill bug or software defect, but a very real showstopping critical vulnerability.

So you going on about the differences between bug and vulnerability is an example of pedantry. Its nice that you know the difference, as I'm sure a lot of us do, but its superfluous to this discussion.

And since when does anyone give a f**k about complexity when it comes to critical vulnerabilities?

Because the implications of patching the vulnerability can extend deeply into the code base and cause other issues down the road, which is why QA processes are necessary, and they don't necessarily have a constant time. More complex code takes longer to evaluate, especially when it runs on an increasingly complicated array of software.

The oversimplification of this entire thing is what I think Lucas is getting at, and its disgusting. People here think that software engineering runs on pixie dust and good feelings. There are actual people working on these projects and it takes actual time to get a fix out of the door in a responsible manner.

Its great that you have had a situation where you got a fix out in a relatively short amount of time, but I hardly think that your experience is one that is necessarily universal.

Reply Parent Score: 3