Feeds

Setback for security through obscurity scheme

IETF drops draft on 'responsible disclosure' of bugs

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

A proposal on the "responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities" has been withdrawn from consideration by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), after criticism that the issue was too political to be decided by the Net's prime technical standards body.

Discussions on the IETF's Security Area Advisory Group mailing list reflected the belief that the document is "out of scope" as it does not deal with technical protocols.

Because of this, Steve Christey, lead information security engineer for government engineering firm Mitre, and Chris Wysopal, director of research at security consultants @stake, have decided to take their ideas elsewhere.

"There does not appear to be any way to achieve consensus on this issue, regardless of the merits of the current draft or any future document that may attempt to describe disclosure recommendations," Christey said in a message to the SAAG list yesterday.

"We are currently identifying other forums that may be more suitable for discussion of the current document and future revisions. If we can't find such a forum, we will create one."

Although Christey is careful to thank security experts on the list for their feedback, the decision to withdraw the proposals from discussion is a clear setback.

Information anarchy

The proposals seek to strike a compromise between those who favour full disclosure of security problems (including us) and software vendors, who want to control information about security risks.

The guidelines, drawn up by the Organisation for Internet Safety, clearly follow Microsoft's agenda (recently articulated by Scott Culp, manager of the Microsoft Security Response Centre) that openly discussing exploits is creating "information anarchy".

Microsoft is attempting to throttle the exchange of vulnerability information relevant to their famously buggy products, clearly in hopes that patches and fixes can be fed to consumers discreetly.

Briefly, the "responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities" scheme requires vendors to withhold detailed security data and to suppress the exchange of exploit code, which, unfortunately, is the only means of verifying that a patch actually works.

Vendors will exercise "best efforts" to avoid disclosing details that can be used to exploit a vulnerability for a period of 30 days from the initial discovery.

After this grace period, or if the Blackhat community begins exploiting it sooner, "additional details" may be released. These details will of course not be sufficient to exploit the flaw, or to test the patch.

There will be exceptions for the Federal authorities, recognised infrastructure protection organisations and "other communities in which enforceable frameworks exist to deter onward uncontrolled distribution."

While it sounds like a common-sense proposal for limiting damage by restricting access to exploits, the effect of this scheme is likely to be a reduction in security.

For one thing, there are a number of highly-respected vendors who believe in full disclosure, and who regard Microsoft's partnership arrangement, in which they obviously won't be able to participate, as an assault on the way they do business.

Slow disclosure

Even those who believe vendors need time to prepare patches before vulnerabilities are made public have criticisms of the proposals.

Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security, said that the proposals are too vague.

"There are so many suggestions and so few requirements that someone could do almost anything and then claim to be following the document. And I believe the document could be used by companies to justify withholding vulnerability information and ignoring security problems," Schneier wrote in his Crypto-gram newsletter last weekend.

The threat of full disclosure of recent SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) vulnerabilities forced companies to patch their systems, Schneier argues.

"To the extent that following the IETF document reduces that threat, it also reduces our security," said Schneier, who added that the document should more properly be called "Limited Disclosure," or maybe "Slow Disclosure."

"Whether or not it is responsible is still a matter of debate," he added. ®

External links

"Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Process" draft

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
FYI: OS X Yosemite's Spotlight tells Apple EVERYTHING you're looking for
It's on by default – didn't you read the small print?
Russian hackers exploit 'Sandworm' bug 'to spy on NATO, EU PCs'
Fix imminent from Microsoft for Vista, Server 2008, other stuff
Edward who? GCHQ boss dodges Snowden topic during last speech
UK spies would rather 'walk' than do 'mass surveillance'
Microsoft pulls another dodgy patch
Redmond makes a hash of hashing add-on
NOT OK GOOGLE: Android images can conceal code
It's been fixed, but hordes won't have applied the upgrade
Apple grapple: Congress kills FBI's Cupertino crypto kybosh plan
Encryption would lead us all into a 'dark place', claim G-Men
DEATH by PowerPoint: Microsoft warns of 0-day attack hidden in slides
Might put out patch in update, might chuck it out sooner
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.