|
|
|
|
|
by stavros
408 days ago
|
|
If the vulnerability can't be fixed within the week, maybe the company should be SOL. This will incentivize companies to build their software better, as they'll know that any vulnerability that is hard to fix will mean consequences. Maybe the mitigation is for the company to take its service down while it works on the problem. Again, a good incentive to avoid that in the first place. Also an incentive to not waste any time after a report comes in, to see and act on it immediately, etc. At some point, we have to balance customer risk from disclosing immediately with companies sitting on vulnerabilities for months, vulnerabilities that may be actively exploited. |
|
Let's take one of the most disastrous bugs in recent history: meltdown.
Speculative execution attacks inside the CPU. This required (in Paul Turners words): putting a warehouse of trampolines around an overly energetic 7-year old.
This, understandably took a lot of time, both for microcode and OS vendors.. it took even longer to fix it in silicone.
Not everyone is running SaaS that can deploy silently, or runs a patch cadence that can be triggered in minutes.
I work in AAA games and I'm biased, we have to pass special certifications to release patches, if your publisher has good relations, waiting for CERT by itself (after you have a validated fix) is 2 weeks.