Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Genders: ♾️, 🟪⬛🟩; Soni L.

@fionafokus hmm, side-question, what makes it bad about publishing patches?

or: why does coordinated disclosure exist?(?) why does it matter that he published patches instead of following a disclosure timeline, we thought that was only a thing to avoid pissing off corporate entities/avoid lawsuits and CFAA charges?

3 comments
Jay 🌺

@SoniEx2 @fionafokus

It is already explained in the blog post. If you notify instance admins in advance, without revealing details about the vulnerability, the time window in which the bug can be exploited should be shortened.

theothertom

@SoniEx2 @fionafokus The reason to have some sort of timeline/coordination is that, once the fix is public the problem is (often) obvious to attackers. Saying “we will release a fix for a serious issue at this time” allows everyone who needs to patch it to be ready, so they can minimize the time they’re vulnerable.

Aaron

@SoniEx2 @fionafokus The issue with just putting the patches on the internet without any coordination is that anyone reading them might be able to reconstruct an exploit to abuse the vulnerability while server administrators do not have a chance to protect themselves, i.e., because no release is available yet.
Instead, it is good practice to coordinate this process so that the time from the patches becoming public and an update being available is as short as possible.

(Edit: public visibility)

@SoniEx2 @fionafokus The issue with just putting the patches on the internet without any coordination is that anyone reading them might be able to reconstruct an exploit to abuse the vulnerability while server administrators do not have a chance to protect themselves, i.e., because no release is available yet.
Instead, it is good practice to coordinate this process so that the time from the patches becoming public and an update being available is as short as possible.

Go Up