[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97a50aff-565f-867a-209c-4c1e93166c9d@customcrypto.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:42:23 -0800
From: Tristan Henning <tristan@...tomcrypto.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: How to deal with reporters who don't want
their bugs fixed?
I don't know if you've all seen this, but, this is definitely how not to
run a bug bounty.
http://www.digitalmunition.com/WhyIWalkedFrom3k.pdf
And the /r/netsec discussion from reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/7dc275/bug_bounty_hunter_walks_away_on_30k_bounty_from/
TL;DR
A researcher found major infrastructure issues and after clarification
of scope managed to compromise a very large part of DJI along with large
amounts of PII. DJI sicked legal on him and he was forced to walk from a
$30,000 bug bounty.
This document and story received a large amount of traction in the
"hacking" community. How many bug hunters will be reporting issues to
DJI in the future? My guess, not a lot...
-Tristan
On 1/22/2018 11:41 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-01-22 17:20, Mikhail Utin wrote:
>
>>> Keeping it individual without public announced maximum embargo time
>>> would also help prevent folks from jumping to 0daying everything per
>>> default:)
>> However, to me it is pure "Security by Obscurity" in a bit different
>> wording. It never worked. Simply think that somebody else knows the
>> secret and with your help continues using that.
> I think you misunderstand the parent post.
>
> Nobody is proposing that the embargo period for any _particular_ issue
> be secret. The proposal in the parent post was to not have a public
> general embargo policy for _all_ issues present & future.
>
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.
