Microsoft no longer publishes advance notifications for its Patch Tuesdays

Posted by   Virus Bulletin on   Jan 12, 2015

Company unhappy with Google going full disclosure on privilege escalation vulnerability.

Tomorrow is the second Tuesday of the month and, as most people reading this blog will know, this means Microsoft will release security updates for its software products. But this "Patch Tuesday" will be slightly different from previous ones, as the company has stopped giving advance notification about which software packages will receive patches.

The change in procedure has led to many unhappy responses from security professionals, many of whom suspect commercial motives for the company's decision to, as it euphemistically calls it, 'evolve' the Advance Notification Service. After all, the company's Premium customers, as well its MAPP partners, will continue to receive the notifications in advance.

I agree that it is in everyone's interest for Microsoft to be as open as possible, and I think it's a shame we will no longer learn in advance about which systems will need to be rebooted.

On the other hand, 2014 was a bit of a rough year when it came to Microsoft's patch cycle, with a number of patches that had to be withdrawn both before and after they were released. I could understand it if the company's engineers would prefer to be able to perform some final QA testing without the whole of the security community watching over their shoulders.

We do know about one vulnerability that will be patched this month: a privilege escalation vulnerability in Windows 8.1 that was discovered by Google in October and subsequently reported to Microsoft.

In line with its own "90-day rule", in which vulnerabilities Google researchers find are automatically disclosed publicly 90 days after notifying the affected vendors, Google published details of the vulnerability yesterday - as they also did for a similar bug in December, when they also included proof-of-concept exploit code.

Microsoft is rather displeased. In a blog post, Chris Betz, Senior Director at Microsoft Security Response Center, urged Google to work with Microsoft in the interest of protecting customers. Releasing vulnerabilities before a fix has been released, he says, is doing "a disservice to millions of people and the systems they depend upon".

While most people agree that an eventual full disclosure of a vulnerability is an important stick to make sure a vendor releases a patch, it is hard not to feel sympathy for Microsoft. After all, couldn't Google have waited just two more days? And was it really necessary to release exploit code?

On the other hand, by adhering strictly to its 90-day rule, Google is sending the clear message that it won't make exceptions, thus preventing politics (or simply knowing the right people) from playing a role. In fact, Google has built its systems so that the disclosure automatically becomes public after 90 days, without any human intervention.

On balance, while I do feel a bit uncomfortable with Google unilaterally deciding what is best for security, in this case I agree with them. The 90-day rule provides a lot of clarity, which is well needed in the world of vulnerability disclosure. We should just get used to it.

Posted on 12 January 2015 by Martijn Grooten

twitter.png
fb.png
linkedin.png
googleplus.png
reddit.png

 

Latest posts:

VB2018 paper: Uncovering the wholesale industry of social media fraud: from botnet to bulk reseller panels

Today, we publish the VB2018 paper by Masarah Paquet-Clouston (GoSecure) who looked at the supply chain behind social media fraud.

VB2018 paper: Now you see it, now you don't: wipers in the wild

Today, we publish the VB2018 paper from Saher Naumaan (BAE Systems) who looks at malware variants that contain a wiper functionality. We also publish the recording of her presentation.

Emotet trojan starts stealing full emails from infected machines

The infamous Emotet trojan has added the capability to steal full email bodies from infected machines, opening the possibilities for more targeted spam and phishing campaigns.

VB2018 paper: Who wasn’t responsible for Olympic Destroyer?

Cisco Talos researchers Paul Rascagnères and Warren Mercer were among the first to write about the Olympic Destroyer, the malware that targeted the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games. Today, we publish the paper they presented at VB2018 about the…

VB2018 paper: From drive-by download to drive-by mining: understanding the new paradigm

Today, we publish the VB2018 paper by Malwarebytes researcher Jérôme Segura, in which he details the shift from exploit kits to drive-by mining. We also publish the video of his VB2018 presentation.

We have placed cookies on your device in order to improve the functionality of this site, as outlined in our cookies policy. However, you may delete and block all cookies from this site and your use of the site will be unaffected. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to Virus Bulletin's use of data as outlined in our privacy policy.