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.
Thread beginning with comment 563455
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The FUD is already rolling against this
by chithanh on Sat 1st Jun 2013 21:26 UTC
chithanh
Member since:
2006-06-18

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/06/01/120204/questioning-googles-...

It is important to emphasize that the 7-day policy applies only to unpatched and actively exploited vulnerabilities. This means that this vulnerability is already known to criminals. So possible negative effects from disclosure are mostly limited to bad PR for the vendor and maybe increased script kiddie activity.

Reply Score: 12

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

+1, and if I'm understanding correctly, just posting an advisory is enough to put off the disclosure (at least temporarily?)

If so this seems like a non issue, and like you said, just bad PR

Reply Parent Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

just posting an advisory is enough to put off the disclosure (at least temporarily?)

Hopefully it depends on what the definition of "advisory" is. A full CVE is an advisory. "lol there's totally a bug guiz! h4x!" isn't.

Reply Parent Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

As much as I read the reports it's the "journalists" blowing it out of proportion(with partial reporting) and Microsoft fanboys jumping onto slamming Google.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

If we are to believe that article 95% of the worlds software companies are run by, and employ, only incompetent buffoons. Granted, we all know that "enterprise software" is just another name for "software so crap that only corporate purchasing will buy it" but 95% is probably too high. Maybe 70%.

Seriously though, if a company can't get a fix, or at least an advisory with a workaround, out in 7 days they deserve to be out of business.

Reply Parent Score: 5

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

When you're dealing with an OS-level bug, where the fix could break tons of software (especially given that Windows 8 can still run Windows 3.0 software)?

Reply Parent Score: 3