[tptacek]

I have no idea about how well the bounty program at Apple is managed, so, without affirming this, I acknowledge this is another plausible explanation: it's just an understaffed team that needs to get its act together.

The only crusade I'm on is against the idea that companies ruthlessly avoid paying bounties, which is, on information and belief, flatly false, like, the opposite of the truth. I think it's valuable for people to get an intuition for that.

Thanks for this!

[jujube3]

Honestly, Apple is a 3.5 trillion dollar company. If the bug bounty program is understaffed then it's an intentional choice and they should fix it. And I say that as someone who's generally sympathetic to Apple.

[tptacek]

Sure. My comment isn't really about Apple specifically so much as bounty program misconceptions generally.

[klingoff]

I think suspicion of bug bounties even from organizations who would clearly benefit the nost from doing them right are well founded and you are over simplifying the situation.

Every organization includes a mess of situations where the overall best interest of the organization no longer comes through. Groups and individuals don't want to admit mistakes both personal and in wider senses and have alliances, competitions, team and organizational loyalty that twists their behavior.

A lot of organizations know they would benefit from having a proper whistle blower program and then proceed to crucify the first person who uses it.

[tptacek]

Bug bounty programs aren't whistleblower programs.

[throwaway48476]

AP is saying they can suffer from the same corporate politics.

[tptacek]

That doesn't make sense, because bounty programs can't punish vulnerability researchers other than not awarding bounties, and whistleblower programs can punish whistleblowers. I got what that comment was trying to say, but, no.

[sho]

> the idea that companies ruthlessly avoid paying bounties, which is, on information and belief, flatly false

Eh, it's likely usually true, but I've worked for a company which was attracted to the bounty program idea mainly for the optics and very much did push back on/was very reluctant to pay out on bounties.

And when I say "for the optics" I mean not only for the company being able to boast about having a bounty program but also the executive in question having something for his quarterly report. Having it not be too expensive was definitely part of the deal.

Needless to say this was a terrible company with terrible leadership, but it's a data point...

[smcin]

Ok but not a company as reputable as Apple, yes?

Apple historically used to have a deservedly good reputation for this. I was quite shocked at this story.

[sho]

> not a company as reputable as Apple, yes?

Definitely not, in fact rather the opposite. I was just sharing the anecdote as a counter to the otherwise fairly blanket claims being made upstream.

[rfoo]

> Apple historically used to have a deservedly good reputation for this.

Are they? Apple only started their bug bounty program (with monetary rewards) merely 5 years ago, 12 years after first iOS release and well after everyone else. They are not very transparent about bugs and payouts (which is understandable) so I wonder where this good reputation comes from?

(if you count their invitation-only program then it started in 2016, 8 years ago)

[madeofpalk]

That's the same thing.

[tptacek]

Obviously no.