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:

A crime against statistics that is probably worse than the cyber attacks faced in County Durham

A report on the number of cyber attacks faced by UK local authorities is a good example of how the large numbers seen in many reports on security are rather meaningless.

NCSC gives important advice on lateral movement

The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has provided helpful and practical advice on preventing and detecting lateral movement by an attacker within a network.

What kind of people attend Virus Bulletin conferences?

If you are considering submitting a proposal for a talk to VB2018 and you're not familiar with the event, you may find it useful to know what kind of people attend the conference.

Olympic Games target of malware, again

An unattributed malware attack has disrupted some computer systems of the 2018 Winter Olympics. In 1994, a computer virus also targeted the Winter Olympics.

There are lessons to be learned from government websites serving cryptocurrency miners

Thousands of websites, including many sites of government organisations in the UK, the US and Sweden, were recently found to have been serving a cryptocurrency miner. More interesting than the incident itself, though, are the lessons that can be…