Google relaxes disclosure policy following criticism

Posted by   Virus Bulletin on   Feb 16, 2015

Grace period added for vulnerabilities that are about to be patched.

Last year, Google announced a new disclosure policy, where details of a vulnerability discovered by the company's researchers would be published within 90 days of the affected vendor being notified, regardless of whether or not a patch had been released. If the vulnerability were to be actively exploited in the wild, details would even be disclosed within seven days.

This policy has been controversial to say the least, with many arguing that patching can be complicated, especially when a vulnerability is buried deep inside the code. When, last month, Google published details of a privilege escalation vulnerability in Windows 8.1 just days before Microsoft issued a patch, many saw it as irresponsible on Google's part.

I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, Google's policy adds clarity to the disclosure debate. Even when vulnerabilities are disclosed responsibly, it can take vendors a very long time to patch, leaving customers at risk and making researchers feel that they might as well sell their discoveries on underground markets.

On the other hand, I feel a bit uncomfortable about Google unilaterally deciding what's best for the Internet. And some recent cases do make one wonder whether it's really in everyone's interest that details of a vulnerability are disclosed a matter of days before a patch is released.

Thankfully, Google is not immune to criticism and has responded by relaxing its policy in two ways.

Firstly, disclosure will never take place during weekends or public holidays; in such cases the deadline will be moved to the next working day.

Secondly, a 14-day 'grace period' has been added for vulnerabilities that will be fixed within two weeks of the 90-day deadline. This should prevent cases like the one affecting Microsoft where the vendor has a patch ready, yet is running some QA-tests, or is waiting for its own patch cycle.

I think Google has made some very reasonable concessions here, without significantly compromising on the essential message of its program: patch quickly, or someone will exploit the vulnerability.

Posted on 16 February 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.