Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Or, a tale of two choices.

“The bug involves the way user privilege levels are set within the operating system. It appears that anyone with authorized access to a Windows computer is able to create an ordinary user account, and then 'trick' Windows into elevating the account with administrator privileges. The attack can easily be pulled off by remote or locally and can result in significant damage, including but not limited to: malware infection, identify theft, and access to otherwise sensitive data as a result of the elevation to administrator privileges. (Source: google.com)” – Infopackets

So, Google’s security wonks discovered a severe security flaw and duly notified Microsoft. The latter asked Google not to publish the flaw for 90 days while MS coders could generate a patch and test it. Google agreed.

MS generally publishes its patches on Patch Tuesday which was to be 92 days after the notification. MS asked Google for an additional two days. Not really unreasonable considering the damage which could occur to innocent users should the flaw be published before the patch was distributed, and honestly, what would be so terrible in waiting to two additional days, compared to possible damages to individuals?

Google didn’t see it that way, maybe because its lawyers might have said Google would be negligent if it didn’t notify? Nah, I don’t buy that either. To me, common sense and common decency would have indicated remaining quiet for two additional days since Google did its due diligence in notifying MS and since MS was publishing a patch. What did those two days really mean to Google? Is it all just because of corporate bad blood and “gotcha”?

Well, MS’s side of it:

“Google revealed the details of the security flaw to the public this past Sunday (January 11th, 2015) -- a full 90 days after it made Microsoft aware of the problem. The timing of public disclosure is what has caused the spat between the two. Microsoft says it, and many other firms, promotes a philosophy called responsible security disclosure (aka Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure), in which researchers that discover bugs should keep the details secret until the relevant software developers have had enough time to find and issue a fix.” – ibid

“CVD philosophy and action is playing out today as one company - Google - has released information about a vulnerability in a Microsoft product, two days before our planned fix on our well known and coordinated Patch Tuesday cadence, despite our request that they avoid doing so.  Specifically, we asked Google to work with us to protect customers by withholding details until Tuesday, January 13, when we will be releasing a fix. Although following through keeps to Google’s announced timeline for disclosure, the decision feels less like principles and more like a “gotcha”, with customers the ones who may suffer as a result. What’s right for Google is not always right for customers. We urge Google to make protection of customers our collective primary goal.” – Chris Betz

What are your thoughts about this? Is MS right about the responsibility? After all, does Google owe MS’s customers anything? Would the right thing have been to withhold publication until after MS issued the patch?

 

Sources:

http://www.infopackets.com/news/9479/google-exposes-severe-windows-flaw-fix-due

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/dn467923

http://blogs.technet.com/b/msrc/archive/2015/01/11/a-call-for-better-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure.aspx


Comments
on Jan 18, 2015

Do no evil.

 

 

 

 

....to oneself....but fuck anyone else...

on Jan 18, 2015

It's simply beyond me what they gained by publishing it before the patch came out...makes it so much easier to loathe them.

on Jan 18, 2015

How long does it take to make a fix?  One doesn't have to wait till Tuesday to put out the patch.  They put out patches on other days all the time.  They could have put it out  when the patch was done.

on Jan 18, 2015

No one should publish security flaws until AFTER they are fixed, common sense! 

on Jan 18, 2015


How long does it take to make a fix?  One doesn't have to wait till Tuesday to put out the patch.  They put out patches on other days all the time.  They could have put it out  when the patch was done.
agreed, mainly because they gave them 90 days, i think that is more than enough and if they can't fix it in that time they should hire someone that can, simple as that, but while they already had the patch why not make it a hotfix to patch the hole right away, that is common sense. 

on Jan 18, 2015

LightStar

No one should publish security flaws until AFTER they are fixed, common sense! 

AGREED!

on Jan 18, 2015

benmanns


Quoting WOM,

How long does it take to make a fix?  One doesn't have to wait till Tuesday to put out the patch.  They put out patches on other days all the time.  They could have put it out  when the patch was done.

agreed, mainly because they gave them 90 days, i think that is more than enough and if they can't fix it in that time they should hire someone that can, simple as that, but while they already had the patch why not make it a hotfix to patch the hole right away, that is common sense. 

 

The whole point of having patches once a month is so that business clients can plan around the patch cycle. In a business environment, patches have to be reviewed for impact, because they can and sometimes do break things and cause downtime or losses. That is why off-cycle patching is reserved for only the most critical of issues; releasing the news and the patch early means business clients have to either sit vulnerable or scramble to reschedule their own processes.

In this case, Microsoft should have asked for a deadline aligning with the patch cycles to begin with, and Google should have held the news for two more days when asked to. There is plenty of stupid to go around this time.

on Jan 18, 2015

 


There is plenty of stupid to go around this time.

This time? Hell, there is more than enough stupid to  go around....ALL the time. 

on Jan 18, 2015


Google didn’t see it that way, maybe because its lawyers might have said Google would be negligent if it didn’t notify? Nah, I don’t buy that either.

Neither do I.  It seems to me the act of broadcasting at the arbitrary point in time would be far riskier in that regard than remaining silent for a few days longer.

It smells to me like an opportunistic publicity maneuver taken at the risk of everyone who uses Windows (and therefore a lot of Google's own customers.)  We are after all talking about Google again.