Feeds

Groups argue over merits of flaw bounties

War of words

Security for virtualized datacentres

Vulnerability researchers, software makers, and security companies that buy information about software flaws found little in common during a panel discussion on Wednesday debating the merits of vulnerability-purchasing programs.

The discussion, wrapping up the first day of the CanSecWest Security Conference, left software makers and the companies that run vulnerability-purchasing programs at loggerheads over whether paying for information about flaws makes sense. Such initiatives help secure the end user, argued Michael Sutton, director of the vulnerability research labs for VeriSign subsidiary iDefense, which pioneered the first permanent bounty program for security vulnerabilities.

"You as an end user have to always wait for the vendor to issue the patch," he said. "If I get a vulnerability to the vendor, that is a good thing, (because) the end game is getting the patch out."

The contentious dispute, replete with raised voices and friendly barbs, underscored the disagreement over the value of bug bounty programs among the three major players in the community: security researchers, software makers and end users.

In August 2002, iDefense established the Vulnerability Contributor Program, the first major program to offer researchers cash for details about undisclosed flaws. It later added cash bonuses to the top contributors every quarter and year as well as rewards for referring other researchers.

Rival TippingPoint, a subsidiary of networking giant 3Com, created its own version of the program last year, spearheaded by the original security manager, David Endler, who founded iDefense's program. Security researchers have even attempted to auction off vulnerability information on eBay, only to have the bidding stopped by the online auctioneer.

Vendors are better off knowing about vulnerabilities ahead of public disclosure, even if the information comes from a third-party that bought the information, Sutton said.

"The only economic model that does not make sense to me is the vendor's," Sutton said. "They get to know about a vulnerabilities ahead of time, but they are unwilling to pay for them."

Of course, not everyone agreed with the sentiment. While researchers are free to sell the information, it is still a leap to argue that doing so makes customers safer, Novell director of software engineering Crispin said.

"As a civil rights issue, selling vulnerabilities is just fine. As a keeping-the-customers safe issue, it's junk."

Software makers generally have not paid for information about software flaws, and likely will not in the future, a situation that leaves them at a disadvantage against the vulnerability buying programs, said panelist member Darius Wiles, the security alerts manager for database software maker Oracle.

"What I can give people who find vulnerabilities is a small amount of fame. iDefense can give them $10,000."

Moreover, a third-party cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the information, Wiles said, stressing that documents regarding software security issues have found their way to Oracle despite being marketed "sensitive" and "do not forward."

TippingPoint, a rival to iDefense in the vulnerability market, does not have a subscriber-only list but uses newly found vulnerabilities to protect customers using the company's intrusion prevention systems. Vulnerability researchers need to be rewarded with more than a modicum of fame for doing the right thing, TippingPoint security response manager Terri Forslof said.

"It is important that there are programs out there to provide an outlet to pay for vulnerability research," Forslof said. "This is just a different way of doing that."

One researcher, which has benefited from such programs, agreed.

Matthew Murphy, a computer information systems major at Missouri State University at Springfield, has sold a handful of flaws to iDefense over the past year, he said during the panel discussion. The 18-year-old student uses the proceeds from his research to offset the cost of tuition at the school.

Going through a third-party security firm feels safer than dealing directly with a software company, Murphy said.

"If I come to you and offer to sell you a vulnerability in your product, I am going to be cuffed and arrested," he told the representatives of software makers on the panel."

Cash-strapped researchers are not the only ones to support the program. Cash-wielding customers seem to believe that such programs may be worth investing in.

One attendee, who said he worked for a major financial firm, told the panel that approving of the vulnerability-purchasing programs has become a moot point. Now, it's time to play ball.

"I am not going to buy information about vulnerabilities, but my vendors better buy them," he said. "My dollars will follow the vendor that does."

This article originally appeared in Security Focus.

Copyright © 2006, SecurityFocus

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

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?
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
'LulzSec leader Aush0k' found to be naughty boy not worthy of jail
15 months home detention leaves egg on feds' faces as they grab for more power
prev story

Whitepapers

Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
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.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.