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 563522
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by JAlexoid on Mon 3rd Jun 2013 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Its nice that you know the difference, as I'm sure a lot of us do, but its superfluous to this discussion.


No. There is a process and urgency difference between a regular bug and a critical bug and a critical security vulnerability. This is at the heart of the issue.

I'm happy for you if you develop software that does not store critical data, that does not mean that others aren't under serious threat from these hushed up for 60 days and "we'll get to it" vulnerabilities. I personally have seen "big boys" jump though burning hoops to get fixes and workarounds out(Like Microsoft did quite a few patches for Telia's Exchange servers within 8 hours, IBM for StoraEnso's Websphere Portal in 4 hours or Oracle for Vodafone).

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.

Seriously... Why would you ignore the word critical there? When it's critical no one cares how complex it is to test, verify or fix it correctly. There is an immediate need for a fix - PERIOD.
Breaking ribs to restart your heart is a non-optimal way of making sure that you live, but when you're in a critical condition no one cares.

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.


No. I had to drop all my work and actually work non stop till the issue was resolved, a few times. SLAs are there for a reason and in the industries that I have worked at they carry hefty fines.

Reply Parent Score: 4