|
|
|
|
|
by ziddoap
476 days ago
|
|
>They should have linked to their website where they publish reports, and been more plain about their intentions from the outset. I don't get this. Their intentions should be clear by the fact that they reveal the entirety of the issue (what's wrong, why it's wrong, where to find it) in the first email. They don't ask for money, hide information behind further correspondence, or anything else that would raise suspicion. The company has everything they need to locate, verify, and fix the issue without having to ever interact with the security researcher again. That's about as obviously well-intentioned as you can get. |
|
But as the reader of lots of these emails, I'm always happier to hear from someone who is able to establish their credibility and intentions with public evidence from the beginning of the conversation.
I'd like to know that I'm dealing with a professional, who takes their work seriously. And I'd like to know if I'm going to be dealing with fallout from next month's feature article as a matter of course, or if I'm being extorted to avoid publishing. (This is a thing).