Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:03:25 +0000 From: halfdog <me@...fdog.net> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: How to deal with reporters who don't want their bugs fixed? Mikhail Utin wrote: > I 100% agree with Solar's response. We should not limit our > freedom to choose how we will handle our intellectual property. We should not limit our "effective freedom", that is limit the number of options we could direct our results or activities. As reality is a strange thing, our "effective freedom" in the long run can be reduced greatly by using "real freedom" at the beginning. OS example: take your "real freedom" to strace SUID-binaries and you lose the "effective freedom", what you could do with that binary if it would have kept its SUID properties. Disclosure example: If you take your "real freedom" to publish as you want, you will limit the "effective freedom" to evolve your ideas in a cooperative, stimulating environment, getting information earlier or unfiltered, get your results and solutions into the community faster and at a higher quality, ... Therefore rules describing how we limit or extend our own freedom seem to make sense to me. As pointed out, writing them under the term "ethics" might not be the right approach as it requires some wider concept of good and bad. But from my point of view, something else might make sense: defining a "code of conduct" This code does not attempt to make a distinction if something is universially good or bad, it just declares how things are. I have the impression, that defining such codes in a somehow standardised way (boilerplate approach) for both sides, reporters and projects/vendors, may ease the collaboration and thus give both parties more "effective freedom". I took my "real freedom" to disgrace myself and attached an attempt to write a personal "code of conduct", see below. As there is no applicable international legal framework or en gros accepted certifications or standards, that is suitable to build trust in the person or organization behind such plain-text CoC-documents, trust should be generated by the community. Maybe heavyweight reputation management might be an overkill, but some involved parties may want a technical scheme to manage trust. Maybe something like signing code of conducts of other parties could be used for that, although I did not really develop that idea further, how that could be done technically. I usually assume, that standardizing a procedure is the real work, the tools to assist it are easy to find or create, as soon as a majority of parties are commited to move in the same direction. See the last paragraph of the attachment, for some kind of proposal. > That is how I read the original statements below. > > Not to cause more discussion, but here is the example of how > "universal ethics" work: > > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/25/intel_spectre_disclosed_flaws_november/ Spectre is a nice example, also from another perspective. Did someone compare e.g. the current wiki pages on Spectre/Meltdown with e.g. https://usn.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-3522-1/ ? Of course there are notorious "IT-security professionals", who just want to spread destruction in their name. But there are also ones, that just want to make a decent living from their skils or in research areas, want to be seen at some level to earn research grants (yes, universities have to get their funding also on the free market), keep their position at universities (publish or parish), ... Question: someone knowing both documents, what (correct or incorrect) conclusions he might draw and how would he adapt his disclosure strategy in future? In my opinion, without having a minimalistic underlying framework to build and leverage trust, irrational and risky behaviour might become the more effective strategy, not only for egoistic individuals but also those who want to play nice but have the feeling that they are losing grounds compared to the big ones. Hence this is also about managing "attribution" in a consistent way, as without other standards, you are only judged by your deeds (and what is known about them). hd > ________________________________ From: Solar Designer > <solar@...nwall.com> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:16 To: > oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [oss-security] > How to deal with reporters who don't want their bugs fixed? > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:23:49AM -0500, Stiepan wrote: >> I think that clear rules might be welcome: > > I agree (specifically, I had suggested explicit maximum embargo > times), but such rules must not be one and only industry standard. > Anyone or any project may propose rules, and other projects > are welcome to reuse those rules, but they must not have to > - they could as well use different rules, or none. At best, > a relatively non-controversial and brief boilerplate could > end up being reused by many projects. > >> We as a profession should have a clear code of ethics > > No. Let's not use the word ethics. That word, except when > explicitly referring to a particular person's or group's ethics, > implies that when we (dis)agree or are judging others, we claim > to be necessarily right - but in reality we're necessarily > subjective. > > This would be just as flawed a concept/term as "responsible > disclosure". (I refrain from using that term as well, except > when pointing out just how unnecessarily judgemental it is > - implying that other kinds of disclosure would have been > "irresponsible" - but we're subjective.) > >> universal ethics' code > > That's an oxymoron. No such thing can possibly exist. > > Alexander View attachment "SecurityResearcher-CodeOfConduct-LeisureResearcher.txt" of type "text/plain" (1821 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.