By Kelly Jackson Higgins
JANUARY 3, 2007
There's a growing rift among the research community over whether the
Month-of-Bugs initiatives are helping security or hurting it. (See
Buggin' Out?  and Apple Bug Bites OS X, Windows. )
There's even now a little pushback from one researcher to the current
Month of Apple Bugs (MOAB): Landon Fuller, a former engineer for Apple
and currently with Three Rings, an online gaming developer, is answering
each MOAB bug with a fix  of his own.
This dueling banjos of bug reports and fixes is an example of how
researchers aren't all on the same page when it comes to how new
vulnerabilities get disclosed. There's always been a clear line between
the bad guys and the good, and the underlying argument is not really new
-- vendors have traditionally maintained a "responsible disclosure"
stance. But now some of the good-guy researchers are more openly
questioning just what constitutes proper disclosure of bugs and
exploits. And the MOAB has become the lightning rod for the debate.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the risk of releasing an
unpatched bug or exploit is worth the potential improvements in
long-term security. The point of the MOAB project, according to its
founders, is to release bugs and exploits without notifying the vendor.
"I think there's a growing consensus that these 'month of XXX' things
are hurting way more than they're helping," says Thomas Ptacek, a
researcher with Matasano Security. Ptacek says most researchers have had
to hold back a vulnerability find for months, "because of a recalcitrant
But for other researchers, there's more of a grey area in the disclosure
argument. RSnake, a self-described "greyhat" hacker who releases
discovered vulnerablities, and does a little subversive work, says the
month-of-bugs projects hasn't run its course. "It definitely has legs,
but it's for the greyhat folks who haven't yet been burnt" by
disclosures, he says.
Greyhats, he explains, "may do good, but they also do bad for either
profit or because they think it serves a greater good," says RSnake, who
works via the ha.ckers.org and sla.ckers.org groups he founded. "They
don't fit in either the good or bad category exactly."
RSnake says there are two types of disclosures, one that's difficult to
exploit and/or won't cause much damage, such as a cross-site scripting
flaw, and another that's easy to exploit or could do lots of damage or
is hard to patch, such as zero-day browser exploits that give an
attacker higher privileges, or some Oracle exploits.
"I opt for corporate [vendor] disclosure very rarely. The only time I
think it is better for consumers to not know they are vulnerable before
companies do is if the patch is very simple but the damage would be huge
if released," he says, such as with OS bugs. "Frankly, I am tired of how
companies deal with disclosure," says RSnake, who this summer
experienced the fallout  of an XSS flaw on Google's site he reported
Other researchers say releasing a bug before a vendor can respond should
be the exception, not the rule.
"I've never found it to be a good thing to release bugs or exploits
without giving a vendor a chance to patch it and do the right thing,"
says Marc Maiffret, CTO of eEye Security Research, a former script
kiddie who co-founded the security firm. "There are rare exceptions
where if a vendor is completely lacking any care for doing the right
thing that you might need to release a bug without a patch -- to make
the vendor pay attention and do something."
Matasano's Ptacek worries the month of bugs approach will hurt the
credibility of researchers with vendors. "The most important problem
researchers have is being ptaken seriously by vendors," he says. "Before
the 'MOXB' thing, the story could credibly be, 'vendors are shipping
software that isn't safe to deploy.' Now the story is, 'researchers are
behaving irresponsibly.' How can they [the MOAB creators] not see that
this is a win for the vendors?"
But all of the debate hasn't deterred researcher LMH, who heads up the
MOAB research project and also ran the Month of Kernel Bugs project in
November. The split among researchers over disclosure, he says, has to
do with those who have consulting deals with vendors. "If you look
closely at the parties that do such 'responsible disclosure,' you'll be
able to draw a red line which separates those who [make] a living out of
it, and those who stay on the top, far above from the business
boundaries," he says.
eEye's Maiffret, meanwhile, says plenty of researchers operate based on
morals, not money. "The reality is you can still be good to business
while also having ethics in handling vulnerabilities," he says. "There
are no laws one way or another, and debating people's morals seems to
never really go anywhere for anyone."
HD Moore, who created the first of these projects, the popular Month of
Browser Bugs, admits the downside to the Month of Bugs-style disclosure
is vendors don't get a headstart on patching. But the approach has more
upsides, according to Moore.
"The awareness piece is still there and it's an effective way of drawing
attention to a class of vulnerabilities," he says, noting that whether
to disclose an unpatched or unknown bug or exploit is more of a
case-by-case situation. "Apple is still getting free security research
performed on their products. It's an expensive service if you have to
pay for it," he notes.
* eEye Digital Security - http://www.eeye.com/html/index.html
* Matasano Security LLC - http://www.matasano.com/log/mtso/
Subscribe to InfoSec News