subject: Flaw auctions would improve security posted: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:43:38 -0000
[Anything that improves software security is fine by me. I don't
care that cleaning up the vendor's mess pays my rent. I'd rather
earn it some other way than constantly patching, scanning, cleaning
every computer in the universe for the rest of time. - Stu]
Researchers: Flaw auctions would improve security
Robert Lemos, SecurityFocus 2005-12-15
The auction may have set a record price for a highlighter pen and an
8-by-11-inch sheet of paper.
The last reported bid before the listing was deleted without ceremony
was $1,200. The price might seem excessive, but the value lay in the
implication of what was on the paper: Information about an unpatched
vulnerability in Microsoft Excel.
This week's understated auction represented the second attempt of an
anonymous security researcher to sell a vulnerability in Microsoft's
spreadsheet application, only to be shut down by online auction
company eBay within 48 hours. Last week, the seller tried the direct
approach--stating that the item for sale was information about the
vulnerability--before being shut down for "encouraging illegal
activity."
"The idea was to estimate a market value for a major vulnerability
and to see who would be interested to obtain such information," said
the seller, who used the handle "fearwall" in the initial auction and
was contacted by SecurityFocus through eBay's e-mail service. "The
listing clearly stated that the information would be delivered to
researchers only."
This week, the seller took a different tack, mentioning the
vulnerability only briefly in the auction description and limiting
the sale to a highlighter and a "letter-sized frameable poster
promoting the importance of information security."
"The poster also contains the website address of a respectable
security research organization that helped me to investigate the
vulnerability and my personal e-mail address," stated the description
of the auction posted by "smk778", the online handle of a person that
eBay confirmed was the same individual who attempted to sell the
Microsoft Excel vulnerability last week.
Several security experts believed the auction to be an indirect
attempt to sell the vulnerability. Yet even the obfuscation did not
save the auction. eBay suspended bidding and deleted the listing by
late Tuesday, citing violations of policies regarding charity
donations and against circumventing fees. The suspension was not
because of the seller's previous auction, said Catherine England, a
spokeswoman for eBay.
"When listings are reviewed, they are considered on the basis of
their own merits, so a variety of factors come into play," said
Catherine England, a spokeswoman for eBay. "If the listing is
determined (by eBay) to encourage illegal activity or violate
copyright then it would be pulled from the site. A listing that
violates any of our policies would be pulled."
The twin auctions have piqued interest among security researchers
about the effect that free-market vulnerability sales could have on
software security. While the idea of selling vulnerability research
has gained more traction amongst the security industry and research
communities, buying flaw information is still a controversial
practice. Currently, two companies actively encourage such sales:
VeriSign's iDefense and 3Com's TippingPoint. Both companies have
created initiatives aimed at procuring original vulnerability
research from independent flaw finders.
Software makers tend to frown upon such tactics because the exposure
of vulnerabilities can significantly undermine trust in their product
and even their stock evaluations. Microsoft typically will criticize
researchers who publicly disclose flaws before giving the company
adequate time, typically at least 30 days and frequently many months,
to fix the problem. The software giant contends that responsible
disclosure precludes vulnerability auctions.
"The first concern is customers' safety," Microsoft said in a
statement sent to SecurityFocus. "That is why Microsoft continues to
encourage responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities; because it
minimizes the risk to computer users. We believe the commonly
accepted practice of reporting vulnerabilities directly to a vendor
serves everyone's best interests."
Yet, a free-market system allowing researchers to sell confirmed
vulnerabilities to all comers would likely help software become more
secure, said Greg Hoglund, a security researcher and CEO of reverse
engineering firm HB Gary. Such auctions would be a significant
incentive for Microsoft and other companies to put more money into
security, he said.
"If you actually have bad guys posting stuff and bad guys buying
stuff, then that's really going to raise the awareness of Microsoft
or whoever," Hoglund said. "It turns up the heat under the vendor to
put even more effort behind their software security."
Turning to auctions to maximize a security researcher's profits and
fairly value security research is not a new idea, Hoglund said. Two
years ago, he had reserved the domain "zerobay.com" and intended to
create an auction site, but worries over liability caused him to
scuttle the plan a few days before the site went live, he said.
The security researcher "fearwall" who attempted to sell the
information about the bug in Microsoft Excel believes such auctions
would create additional market forces to support more secure
software.
"A publicly auctioned vulnerability would create a healthy
competition between the owner of the application and (third-party
security) companies," he said.
Arguments that cybercriminals would be able to use such a marketplace
to improve their attack software are unfounded, he added.
"eBay is not a black market where anyone can buy and sell the
information and stay anonymous," he said. "You can buy a weapon at
the store or on the street and use it to commit a crime or to protect
yourself. What matters is that you are less likely to commit a crime
when you buy it at the store."
Researchers and software makers would also benefit from such a
marketplace, said David Aitel, principal researcher and president of
security consulting firm Immunity. Auctions would likely result in
better pay for independent vulnerability researchers and might
actually be cheaper in the long run for software makers, he said.
"It is cheaper to pay a researcher for a flaw than to invest in an
extensive audit of a product," Aitel said. "That $1,200 is less than
a day of consulting--it's a bargain basement deal as far as (the
software vendors) are concerned."
Aitel placed a bid on the auction for the highlighter and one-page
document, not to gain information about a vulnerability, but to
procure a memorable artifact of the vulnerability disclosure debate,
he said.
"You are buying into the mystique," Aitel said.
At present, the only options for security researchers looking to sell
flaws are to either contact the vendor directly in exchange for an
acknowledgment in the eventual disclosure of the flaw or to
participate in one of two programs. The iDefense Vulnerability
Contributor Program pays anywhere between $100 to $1,000 for a flaw
depending on the severity and the popularity of the software program,
with quarterly bonuses for prolific flaw finders and loyalty. The
3Com Zero Day Initiative does not disclose its rates for
vulnerabilities but the program also rewards prolific submissions and
loyalty.
The economy could evolve from a few companies with such programs to a
third-party auction system, said David Endler, director of security
research for 3Com's TippingPoint.
"There is an increase of awareness among security vendors in the
value of leveraging independent security researchers, as is evident
in the creation of multiple public and private vulnerability reward
programs," he said. "While we think an unmoderated vulnerability
auction could have negative repercussions, competition combined with
market maturation, may open the doors for an independent, trusted
third-party vulnerability auction house."
However, the requirements for such a business would be steep, he
said. Just as Sotheby's attests to the authenticity of historic
artifacts in its auctions, a vulnerability auction house would have
to have a way to vouch for the accuracy of a researcher's claims.
Furthermore, to prevent illegal use of the information, the service
would have to have agreement with the buyer regarding use of the
vulnerability, Endler said. Finally, the software vendor in which
whose product the vulnerability resides should have right of first
refusal.
Those requisites may never be satisfied, nor do they have to be, said
HB Gary's Hoglund.
"The fact is that bad guys will get their hands on exploit material
regardless of whether there is an auction house," he said. "Further
more, if people see exploit research being sold for a nice amount of
money, then it will get researchers interested in pounding on these
products again and find more bugs."
To Hoglund, a free market for vulnerabilities means more pressure for
secure software.
"In no model, does the security of the software itself go down, it
only goes up," he said.
search: