Difference between revisions of "Full vs. Responsible Disclosure of Vulnerabilities"
From CyberSecurity
m |
m |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disclosure Wikipedia: Full Disclosure] | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disclosure Wikipedia: Full Disclosure] | ||
− | * [http:// | + | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFPolicy RFPolicy] |
Revision as of 22:05, 11 November 2005
- What are software/hardware vulnerabilities?
- Why should we disclose the vulnerabilities?
- What kinds of peoples would discover the vulnerabilities?
- What kinds of peoples would take the advantage of vulnerabilities?
- Once people discover vulnerabilities, how much should they disclose (full/partial)? Who should they disclose to (public/government/academic-research/manufacturer-only)? When should they disclose?
- What constitute a responsible disclosure?
- Does it mean safe if people responsibly disclose the vulnerabilities?
- If the software/hardware manufacturer cannot fix the vulnerabilities in reasonable time, should the academic/research communities step in and help?
- Does “Open Source” necessarily mean full disclosure?
- Comparing the disclosure of vulnerabilities to other non-cyber subjects, i.e. health, environment
- Should we have a public committee to manage/control the info flow of vulnerabilities?
- As mentioned by one of the speakers on 11/9, hackers usually won’t go for discovering new vulnerabilities. After a patch is released by manufacturer, hackers can apply reverse-engineering to understand the vulnerabilities. Would a limited disclosure work?
- Should we do a better job on notifying/educating the public/consumers about vulnerabilities? Why people should care? What they should do?