[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A78E5D.9050200@bucksch.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:34:21 +0100
From: Ben Bucksch <news@...ksch.org>
To: Shawna McAlearney <SMcAlearney@....com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Seeking comment on disclosure articles
I hope you realize that you open a highly controversial subject, i.e
flamewar. My current approach is:
Basic idea is that vendors should have the ability to fix them without
the public exploiting it at the same time, but even during the secret
time, various parties will see the bug, so this time is highly
dangerous, so it must be kept to the minimum. Exploits should be fixed
within 7 days, from first report to shipping fix.
I notify the vendor in advance, via security@...mple.com and other
addresses. I cc the press. I expect a first response within 24 hours
about where the message is routed. I set a deadline of 7 days. I want to
know about the progress and final fix, because most often, the proposed
fix will not entirely fix the problem. If I don't see the vendor as
treating this with enough priority or pressure, he gets 1 or 2 warnings,
and if the treatment doesn't improve, I publish the bug on the "Full
Disclosure" mailing list. As soon as the fix ships, the bugs gets
published, and a few days later, all details get published.
These are the ground rules. There may be reasons to immediately publish
without pre-notification, e.g. when the bug is too obvious. Under no
circumstance should a fix take longer than one month.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists