[tomjakubowski]

Hi Hursh, I'm Tom. A couple friends use Arc and they like it, so I had considered switching to it myself. Now, I won't, not really because of this vulnerability itself (startups make mistakes), but because you paid a measly $2k bounty for a bug that owns, in a dangerous way, all of your users. I won't use a browser made by a vendor who takes the security of their users this unseriously.

By the way, I don't know for sure, but given the severity I suspect on the black market this bug would have gone for a _lot_ more than $2k.

[poincaredisk]

Selling vulnerability on the black market is immoral and may be illegal. The goal of bug bounty programs was initially to signal "we won't sue white hat researchers who disclose their findings to us", when did it evolve into "pay me more than criminals would, or else"?

[tolmasky]

Let's set aside morality for a second. There is a reason low payouts are bad without even having to consider the black market: it pushes people to search for bugs in a competitor's app that pays more instead of in your app!

If your app is paying out $2K and a competing app pays out $100K, why would anyone bother searching for bugs in your app? Every minute spent researching your app pay 1/50th of what you'd get searching in the competing app (unless your app has 50x more bugs I suppose, but perhaps then you have bigger problems...).

I'm always so confused by the negative responses to people asking for higher bug bounties. It feels like it still comes from this weird entitlement that researchers owe you the bug report. Perhaps they do. But you know what they definitely don't owe you? Looking for new bugs! Ultimately this attitude always leads to the same place: the places that pay more protect their users better. It is thus completely reasonable to decide not to use a product as a user if the company that makes the product isn't paying high bug bounties. It's the same as discovering that a restaurant is cheeping out on health inspections and deciding to no longer eat there.

[voidwtf]

Bug bounties are always in relation to severity, number of users potentially at risk, and market cap. A browser operating at a deficit from a small company with a small market share cannot pay 100k even if they wanted to.

If you and a couple friends released an app that had 50k users and you’d not even broken even, can I claim my 100k by finding a critical RCE?

[tolmasky]

No, because you probably haven’t bothered to find said CVE. There’s a strange refusal to understand the simplest market considerations here. I understand it sucks and you may not be able to afford it, but the consequence, regardless of all the reasons you can give, is that you will get less of the right kind of attention (security researchers). Now, you can hope that you will also get less of the wrong kind of attention too, and if you’re lucky all of these will scale together. Or, alternatively, you can for example not start by introducing features like Boosts that have a higher probability of adding security vulnerabilities, counter-acting the initial benefit of riding in Chrome’s security by using the same engine. Browsers are particularly sensitive products. It’s a tough space because you’re asking users to live their life in there. In theory using Chromium as a base should be a good hack to be able to do this while plausibly offering comparable security to the well established players.

Long story short, there are ways to creatively solve this problem, or avoid it, but simply exclaiming “well it would be too hard to do the necessary thing” is probably not a good solution.

[voidwtf]

lol, that’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works…

you cannot demand more than someone is willing to or able to pay, either a researcher out there will spend some time on it because it’s a relatively new contender to the market and they’re hoping for low hanging fruit, or they won’t.

obviously the bounty was enough for someone to look at it and get paid out for a find, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. trying to argue that they should set a bounty high enough to make it worth your time is pointless and a funny stance to take. feel free to ignore it or be upset that they aren’t offering enough to make you feel secure, it’s not going to make 100k appear out of thin air.

[tolmasky]

I’m not a security researcher, so it’s really not about me. You seem to be confused about what we’re even arguing about, this discussion started because someone said they wouldn’t use this browser because the low bug bounty amount represents that the company isn’t taking security seriously. My posts simply defend why this is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. They are not me demanding an increase in bug bounties so that I will work on them. A good trick if you’re ever confused about a discussion is to simply scroll up and read the posts, I’ll make it even easier for you, this is where it starts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41606272

Secondly, in a true demonstration of confusion, if you read my posts they demand nothing. They simply state what are likely outcomes of certain choices. I’m not sure how to possibly make the stance of “if you pay smaller bug bounties in a market that has other offerings, you will get less research focused on your product” any simpler. It seems fairly straightforward… and the existence of one bug report does not somehow “disprove” this. Why not make the bug bounty $1 otherwise? Oh, is that a ridiculous suggestion? Because that might not be a worthwhile enough incentive perhaps? But who are you to dictate what is and isn’t a worthwhile incentive. “That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works…”

> “either a researcher out there will spend some time on it […] or they won’t.”

Yes, I agree with this truism that they either will spend time on it or they won’t. Interestingly, this is true in all scenarios. My point is how to optimize researchers spending time on your product (which in theory you are inclined to do if your are offering a bounty), and I then separately even make suggestions for how to possibly require less attention by making safer choices and being able to “ride” on another project’s bug bounties.

But again, the simplest point here is that the position of “we offer low bug bounties because that is what we can afford” is fine, it’s just also absolutely defensible to be completely turned off by it as a potential user of that product, for the likely security implications of that position.

[netdevnet]

Put it this way. If someone got hold of the vuln and exploited all the users and they all sued you, how much would it cost to defend yourself in court (not even considering winning or losing)

[xelamonster]

Right, part of the idea is to close the gap in incentives for white hats looking for vulnerabilities to report and black hats looking for the same to exploit. You don't have to beat the black market price of a vuln because that route is much riskier, but somewhere at least in the same order of magnitude sounds decent.

It's not about viewing security researchers as sociopaths who will always sell to the highest bidder, the fact is there will always be criminals going for exploits and bug bounties can help not just by paying off someone that would have otherwise abused a bug but also by attracting an equally motivated team who would otherwise be entirely uninvolved to play defense.

[JumpCrisscross]

> because you paid a measly $2k bounty for a bug that owns, in a dangerous way, all of your users

The case is redeemable. It may still be an opportunity if handled deftly. But it would require an almost theatrical display of generosity to the white hat (together, likely, with a re-constituting of the engineering team).

[ljm]

You have no idea but you suspect someone could have made more?

[xelamonster]

After thinking about it for a good long ten seconds, yeah. It would be very easy to steal users' banking information with this. If you crack into one single bank account you have a decent shot at making over $2k right there, a skilled hacker could do a lot more.

[7sidedmarble]

That is generally how suspicions work

[tengbretson]

So you're not going to use Arc. How much do you pay for the browser you do use?

[lytedev]

Statistically, Tom is using a browser that cost him $0. Why are you asking?

[wahnfrieden]

Thousands

[keepamovin]

Should have at least paid €1 per user. Eh, maybe that’s what they did?