Is It Illegal To Disclose a Web Vulnerability? 198
Scott writes "I'm submitting my own story on an important topic: Is it illegal to discover a vulnerability on a Web site? No one knows yet, but Eric McCarty's pleading guilty to hacking USC's web site was 'terrible and detrimental,' according to tech lawyer Jennifer Granick. She believes the law needs at least to be clarified, and preferably changed to protect those who find flaws in production Web sites — as opposed to those who 'exploit' such flaws. Of course, the owners of sites often don't see the distinction between the two. Regardless of whether or not it's illegal to disclose Web vulnerabilities, it's certainly problematic, and perhaps a fool's errand. After all, have you seen how easy it is to find XSS flaws in Web sites? In fact, the Web is challenging the very definition of 'vulnerability,' and some researchers are scared. As one researcher in the story says: 'I'm intimidated by the possible consequences to my career, bank account, and sanity. I agree with [noted security researcher] H.D. Moore, as far as production websites are concerned: "There is no way to report a vulnerability safely."'"
So is it illegal too... (Score:2, Insightful)
paste up a poster in the town square, announcing that the lock is broken on the back of the hardware store?
How is this different?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that there are many emperors that want to believe in security by obscurity, and when told they have no clothes, would rather shoot the messenger than face reality.
It is a little different (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So is it illegal too... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that you'd get in trouble -- and how could you? -- if you submitted the vulnerability, or even publicized it, anonymously. There are lots of ways to do this; Mixmaster comes to mind, and is practically invulnerable to tracing, particularly when your potential adversary isn't expecting an anonymous communication to come in.
If you found a problem, realize that no good is ever going to come to you because of it, and don't expect to ever be rewarded or thanked. Once you've acknowledged those things, there's no reason to attach your name to it, when you let them know.
It's when you try to have your cake and eat it too -- point out someone else's problem while getting rewarded for it -- that the problems really begin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So is it illegal too... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the hardware store gets broken into it mainly effects the owner(s) of the store, the people who work there, and not many other people. If a site like yahoo (the mail aspect of it), a banking site, or paypal is broken into and exploited then it effects every single person who uses the site in a very negative way.
I don't think publically announcing a vulnerability in a specific public service or facility is very responsible. At the same time, many businesses don't do anything to fix the problem if only one person tells them about it. The public releases we commonly see are sometimes necessary because without the pressure of the public eye the business won't correct the problems in it's service.
I've done things similar to this on a few occasions. I found a vulnerability in Surgemail, an all-in-one mail server software for Linux, which allowed any remote user to read any mail to the root account, and to send mail as root. I emailed them about it several times and received no reply for over six months. I finally released the info on it, and they fixed it two weeks later. I did something similar with an online service schools in my area offer which allows anyone to see the grades and personal info (SS#, home address, etc) of students in the school through a SQL injection. I contacted several schools about the issue as well as the company they had contracted to write the software for them. It's been 2 years and they still haven't fixed it.
Test my house for security vulnerabilities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Test my house for security vulnerabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like checking the locks on the backside of a Walmart. Suspicious, but not illegal, and not nearly as unethical.
Heck, you may actually have a legitimate reason to be back there - such as offloading goods from a truck.
The same can be said for security vulnerabilities in websites. You can easily stumble across them when you're not even looking in places that you're supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like checking the locks on the backside of a Walmart.
Even the backside might not be necessary. Who hasn't walked up to a storefront entrance with the intent of going in and been rebuffed by a locked door before seeing the store's hours?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Test my house for security vulnerabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't try the doors either. But, if I saw one open then I'd tell someone, just the same as when I've baggage unattended for a suspiciously lengthy period.
But relating this to the article, and this is where the contention starts: The web doesn't easily discriminate between 'seeing
If you found an unlocked door at an airport (Score:4, Informative)
Car Lights & Common Courtesy (Score:3, Interesting)
In the old days, someone would check the doors to see if they were unlocked and turn off the lights for the person to keep their battery from running down.
Would you touch someone else's car today if the lights were on?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is illegal to stand on the corner and say, "That house over there is selling cocaine for $10." when you are hired by the cocaine house.
So are these people saying, "Product X sux because of this vulnerabily xyz here, exploitable via abc", and that's that, or are they saying, "Product X sux because of blah blah blah, and company X, could you pay me $10 or I'll release the info?"
no good deed (Score:2)
No good deed goes unpunished. The lesson here is, lett the poor bastards find out about the problem after it's too late.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just anonymously post their discoveries in a public forum. That's what I'd do at this point... being nice and telling the site admin directly is too risky, and there's no excuse to let security issues just sit unnoticed.
Re: (Score:2)
there's no excuse to let security issues just sit unnoticed.
Sure there is, if they're going to treat you like scum when you try to help them, let them suffer the consequences. If they don't appreciate it when someone points out a problem let them face the pbulic and their customers or clients when a cracker or script kiddie exploits the vulnerability. You shouldn't have to hide just because you try to help someone.!!!
FalconRe: No good deed goes unpunished (Score:3, Informative)
Discover, or try to discover? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I click a link, and something breaks, and I've 'discovered' a problem, I've probably not done anything. It just broke, and I was the one who was there.
If I try to find a problem, and do (even if I don't exploit it), then I might have been doing something I shouldn't.
A real world example would be, if you get caught outside of a door, trying to pick the lock, and then claim you were trying to ensure their locks were safe, you might get charged bith attempted B&E. You don't get to do a security audit on people's front doors.
As much as we like to separate people into black hats and white hats, if you were trying to jimmy the lock, for whatever reason, you were probably doing something you shouldn't have been.
Just my 2 cents, anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This, however, is different in civil courts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my network magazines that I get at no charge by filling out survey information had expired. I got a phone call and the person on the line asked me to renew. She provided a generic website address, and then a unique ID.
The problem was that the Unique ID was not random. It was something like 123456. When I put this in, it wasn't just a questioner. It had my personal information. I could put in 123457 or 123455 and bring up the personal information of someone else.
It is a we
Re:Discover, or try to discover? (Score:4, Insightful)
A real world example would be, if you get caught outside of a door, trying to pick the lock, and then claim you were trying to ensure their locks were safe, you might get charged bith attempted B&E. You don't get to do a security audit on people's front doors.
I don't buy that analogy. Breaking and entering is a crime. Theft is a crime. Exploiting computer vulnerabilities is a crime. I'm not sure finding computer vulnerabilities is or should be a crime. I could just as easily use the analogy, "looking at the windows of houses to see if they are open or unlocked is not a crime, but climbing through a window is."
I think laws that rely upon somehow knowing the intent of the person performing an act are pretty poor laws. If I go tell you your locks are really old and can be opened with a plastic fork because I noticed it while walking by, and you happen to run a store I do business with and hence have my CC# on file, that sure shouldn't be a crime. If I write a letter to the editor of the newspaper saying the same, it should not be a crime. If I notice on your Web site the same level of e-security, I don't see how it is qualitatively different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm gonna divide that into two halves ... the one that makes sense, and the other.
If you truly 'walked by' and noticed the windows, and told me about it, that's like notif
Re:Discover, or try to discover? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you then went to a known burglar with the information, well, you're no longer just doing something nice and innocent now, are you??
Yes, but no one is claiming you should be able to find vulnerabilities and give or sell them to blackhats, merely make them public or inform the site operator without worrying about being sued.
or the second half ... WTF does having, or not having, your credit card # on file apply to this?? It seems a bit spurious to the conversation at hand, and I'll treat it as such.
No it isn't. If they have your credit card on file (as many e-businesses might) then you have a business relationship with them and a vested interest in their security. It is perfectly legal and sometimes industry practice to hire private investigators to look into the security of current or proposed business partners.
I don't think you've idly done nothing.
You've done something, but nothing illegal.
You've made available to people the means to commit and illegal act. The fact that it was just there for anyone to see (or you spent three hours trying to find it) doesn't mean you wouldn't have anything to do with them getting robbed.
So what if the local bank, where the whole town keeps their money, tends to leave the back door propped open and the safe unlocked? Should it be illegal for me to tell the paper or the paper to write an article letting everyone know they should take their money out? Should you have to be concerned about being sued if you write the bank manager and let him know what is going on?
I realize people figure that white hats should scream really loud so everyone knows the vulerability, because the black hats wouldn't. But, telling the black hats how to do it, you no longer get to say you're better than they are. In fact, you're probably worse, because you were the one casing the joint, as it were.
Not at all. Whitehats do not profit from illegal actions and are aiming to improve overall security. Full disclosure is not always the best way to go about improving security, but sometimes it is. Why you think only in terms of full disclosure, however, is a mystery to me. Even the summary specifically mentions people being sued for just telling the Web service provider that the service has vulnerabilities in it.
You don't have an obligation to ensure that everyone in the world knows how to open every unsecured lock.
No, but sometimes telling the public how to open a particular lock is the best way to improve security. If Diebold starts selling a new combination bike lock, and I discover 1.2.3.4 always opens it, and I know at least one gang of thieves is already looking for these locks and stealing bikes via this method... I should 100% have no fear that I will suffer legal repercussions if I tell the support guys at Diebold. If Diebold refuses to acknowledge the problem I should likewise have no fear that my exercising my freedom of expression and telling the local newspaper will result in my being prosecuted for some crime. The same goes for software and services on computers.
credit card number (Score:2)
For the second half ... WTF does having, or not having, your credit card # on file apply to this?? It seems a bit spurious to the conversation at hand, and I'll treat it as such. :-P
That one is easy, the person whose credit card number is on file is at risk of having the number stolen and then having the card maxed out. If it were me I'd definitely would want you to do something or you'd loose me as a customer as well as maybe be slapped with a lawsuit.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wondered what would happen if I changed the number in the URL and found that the site would happily show me the details for all the other applicants (including quite sensitive information).
Was changing the URL "trying to discover a v
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago, I applied for a job at a well known company using their online application site. When I finished filling in the form, the site redirected to a page with a URL like https://www.example.com/viewapplication.asp?applic antid=12345 [example.com] that displayed all of my details.
I wondered what would happen if I changed the number in the URL and found that the site would happily show me the details for all the other applicants (including quite sensitive information).
Was changing the URL "trying to discover a vulnerability" or "discovering a vulnerability"?
What if the values had been sent using a HTTP POST (so I couldn't see them or edit them by just changing a URL)? What if they had been lightly encrypted or included a check-digit?
A truely devious mind would have entered https://www.example.com/viewapplication.asp?applic antid=12345 %3B update applicants set photo_url='http://goat.ca/hello.jpg' %3B-- or something equally funny.
It's really about being a vigilante (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No! No metaphors!
Computer networks aren't neighborhoods, superhighways, or libraries. Trying to shoehorn the metaphors onto a reluctant reality just means people endlessly argue about the metaphor and not the question at hand.
The question is, "is it illegal to disclose a web vulnerability?" You also ask "What are the boundaries of permitted probing?"
I don't have an answer, but I'll give you one aspect that is not covered by any real-world metaphor, yet is very important: If I g
Re: (Score:2)
Computer networks aren't neighborhoods, superhighways, or libraries.
They're a series of tubes, obviously.
(-1, too easy)
If I go to a website and give it my credit card number, I have no assurance that they aren't doing stupid things with it.
...
That's an interesting question, but there's almost no real-world analog with modern credit card systems that don't have to record the full number. And please, don't try to shoehorn a metaphor onto this.
I know you didn't want real-world analogy, but ... you hand your credit card to the waitress at a restaurant. She goes into the back to ring it up. You have no assurance that she isn't doing stupid things with it. She isn't supposed to make a carbon copy of your CC to sell to or be stolen by someone else, either. That's a pretty clear and not-at-all contrived analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you honestly think I've never seen the waitress metaphor? It hardly resembles the Internet at all.
(In fact, I almost never see an analogy that comes even close to capturing the issues of scale presented by the Internet.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I store my stuff in a storage locker and have to use a lock the storage company provides, can I test its security?
If I live in an apartment building, can I check the lock on my door to make sure it's not easy to pick?
In reality, all locks are pretty easy to pick. Locksmiths and law enforcement have tools that can
Re: (Score:2)
Is this about discovering a vulerability, or trying to discover a vulnerability?
This seems to be the essence of the law. The federal law uses the word intentionally for a reason. Link to the text of 18 U.S.C. 1030 [justice.gov].
For those who read the legal text remember "damage" could cover a lot of things including log files or time stamps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Discover, or try to discover? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I guess, like any legal matter, one hopes there is a threshold of evidence to indicate one way or the other, and that people are looking at it on a case-by-case basis.
If I bump into an owie on someone's site, send them a friendly "hey, did you know this", and the logs don't indicate that I spent a few hours entering in junk, then, maybe, I need the benefit of the doubt and I was a nice guy who told them of something unusual as soon as it happened.
If I spent hours putting in malformed urls, experimenting with SQL injection, XSS stuff, and the logs show it, then maybe you need to look at me a little closer as someone who was specifically trying to breach their security.
Like any such thing, I would hope it's not a truly black or white distinction -- I would hate to think that accidentally discovering a bug on a web page, which was a vulnerability, was a crime. That would mean that you were guilty of comitting a crime, when in fact, you found a bug in someone's software. And *that* is scary indeed!!
You do raise a good point; but sometimes it's better that the law use our nice little presumption of innocence and we miss people, as opposed to a presumption of guilt, and we arrest innocent people.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clicking the link took me to a page that had links to pdf reports, etc. Clicking on one of those took me to a standard apache index page with a list of the contents of the directory.
After clicking around in there, the source files for a multi-thousand (close to $10,000) cold fusion enterprise CMS system were discovered. Clicking on one of the
Re: (Score:2)
When something doesn't quite work, don't be tempted to strip the training filename off a URL in the address bar, as that's been proven in the US courts as _hacking_.
I use, delete the last file or directory from website, all the tyme if I get a 404, File Not Found, message. It makes it easier to find the file if it is still on the server, but the addie has changed, than going to the front page. It's the same suggestion I've been given by professors. If the webmaster or whomever doesn't want people to h
Lack of qualifications ... (Score:2)
It's an issue of trust. If you sit outside the system and make pronouncements, it's difficult to trust what you say. If you break into
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I plan to send a large number of emails to security professionals hiring them to hack my website and send me a report of what they find.
-- sincerely,
Charles Prince
Chairman & CEO
citigroup
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, many of the current actually-qualified security researchers have some sort of black-hatting in their background, which, to my mind, makes them suspect in the first place.
Would you automatically disqualify Kevin Metnick [freekevin.org] just because he was a "blackhat hacker"?
FalconAnonymizers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymizer tools have improved since then, especially for combating censorship. Would you be able to use TOR or something similar to report vulnerabilities without exposing your identity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One option would be to use cryptography creatively, so you could authoritatively reveal yourself at any time. However, if you're trying to get a legitimate job from doing something illegal, yeah, that seems like a lost cause.
I guess it depends on the business model of independent security researchers, which is somewhat of a mystery to me.
So don't. (Score:2)
Expensive lesson usually means lesson learned.
Why are we supposed to help the stupid? Let them continue doing stupid things until they get pwnt and it costs them their business.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Making mistakes != being stupid. If someone found a vulnerability in your site wouldn't you want them to let you know about it? On the other hand, if you had already been warned about this vulnerability and done nothing about it then yes, that would be very stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. They're on the same Internet we are, flooding the common bandwidth with worms and spam.
2. We may have to actually do business with them (banks, government sites, etc.)
3. It can be very interesting and rewarding to find vulnerabilities. It improves one's ability to create secure code.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It should be handled like every other related a (Score:2)
"The road to hell" and all that.
No can be compelled to believe in your good intentions.
Your actions were disruptive, possibly hostile, and that is all anyone will ever need or want to know.
What's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Script kiddies may already know about the vulnerability. There is no reason to believe that you are the first to discover the exploit.
2. The webmaster might not fix the issue before harm is done to the users. If the script kiddies already know about the vulnerability, they will likely exploit it before the webmaster has time to react.
As a user, I want to know immediately when a vulnerability is discovered. It gives me an opportunity to stop doing business with a website befo
Re: (Score:2)
vulnerability disclosure: how much is too much? (Score:3, Informative)
damn litigious assholes (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:2)
It's been ok for me (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago I was renewing my car tabs on the WA state's site and they had a box for 'donations to DOT' or somesuch. For kicks I tried putting in a negative value, and sure enough it reflected the total for my tabs as less. I went ahead and submitted things with a dollar taken off the value, just to see if it would actually go through. Sure enough, a week later I received my tabs, and the mathematically correct but embarrassing negative donation on my receipt.
I ended up calling them and letting them know about the bug. They were nice about it, and the next year at least it was fixed.
-Nic
There's two types of people in the world.... (Score:2, Insightful)
and those that proudly proclaim "I am doing this and no-one can stop me. If you think you can arrest me for this, YOU ARE WRONG."
The first kind of people contribute nothing to our freedoms. They are crippled by uncertainty and their annoying whining makes people think that, hey, maybe there is something to fear. The second kind of people challenge the norms and make that which was uncertain clearly
Re: (Score:2)
Youre advocating vigilantism. The history of vigilantism proves your narrow assumption about 'badasses' very wrong. [ncwc.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about this: Would anybody care about Rosa Parks if she wasn't a little old lady? How many hundreds of black men tried the same thing and only ended up in prison?
You need more than just a backbone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look who will argue, write and advocate the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Each time an exploit comes out, the pattern is the same. the company doesn't announce it, anti-virus makers are either paid off (as in 'approved' spyware and/or rootkits) or not kept informed, and once the story breaks, the public relations machine starts. The researcher is vilified as a hacker, the problem is denied or minimized, and the prospect of a patch is left moot because this would require accepting that a huge problem exists. Most of us scream that this is ridiculous, companies should tell everyone when an exploit shows up, and patch it as soon as possible. More to the point, they should expose their source code to scrutiny in order to better provide services to their customers.
Are you sitting down? good. They won't and they don't care. The first rule in the PR handbook is to deny and put off realization. If the big front is that there isn't a problem, or that a crack of a voting machine can only be done in a lab, and months down the road, the company quietly sues the researcher or releases a patch, they win. People have a limited attention span and fatigue quickly in the face of fear and hysteria. As long as your company's admission of guilt comes well after the original problem, or not at all, people are happy.
With this in mind, let's look at the law. thankfully, whistleblowers have some protection, and some internal voices about code might not be silenced, especially if the review takes place within the judicial system, and not through a new law. Of course, corporate secrecy, as in the case of Apple and HP, is pretty extreme, and most employees wouldn't risk the civil consequences of voicing a problem that doesn't rise to the level of a public safety hazard.
Outside researchers are in more and more trouble, and this really only leads to problems for the customer base as a whole. We rely on sites like MOAB [info-pull.com] to shame companies into action. We also rely on OSS competition in order to make products like IE better--Firefox gives an economic incentive to Microsoft to improve their product, otherwise, security development would have languished.
Very few analogues exist in the places where this is critically important: commercial and banking software. CITIbank [boingboing.net] suffers a classbreak and doesn't bother informing their customers. Security conscious customers can voice their discontent and move to another bank, but we have to trust that the new bank is as averse to security breaches as we are. For the rest of the millions of customers, security will not improve. Since identity theft costs are largely borne by the customers, the banks don't care. because the banks don't care, it is much easier, and better in their eyes, to make publishing voulnerabilities like this one [eweek.com] illegal and trust that their customers will never be the wiser.
check out this article:
[PDF] Why information security is hard [google.com]
It may not be illegal... (Score:3, Insightful)
But then, it's not your business, either.
Should you discover a security vulnerability, the correct response is to forget it. Here's why:
Naturally, we might feel a sense of duty to help someone out - if they have an exposed security flaw, we naturally want to help them. But first consider how it will be received. Most companies would rather produce software with publicly unknown flaws than to produce perfect software, websites, etc... at a much higher cost.
And, if you feel that the website owner would appreciate knowing, you might at least disclose it from an anonymous email address.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a website owner, and admin of several sites, yes I do want to know and while no one likes bad n
Re: (Score:2)
While it may be the right thing to do, and I certainly respect your wishes concerning your own website, the unfortunate reality is that business has created a climate of fear and uncertainty surrounding disclosure. Thus, your website may get hacked because some good samaritan is afraid of disclosing a vulnerability with your website.
People are risk averse, and disclosing bugs carries a lot of risk with it. If you desire reporting of security vulnerabilities, you should state so, in unambiguous languag
So tonight... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
smashing the window means you've actually made the system more vulnerable than it was, which is not the case in this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
But 2 years latter you notice that it's still off the hinges, and your cousin rents the basement apartment and you're worried about her safety - so you post a message on the community bulletin board to embarass him into fixing the door (the fucking cheapskate - putting your cousin at risk just because he's too fucking cheap to fix the broken door).
Security by obscurity does not work (Score:2)
An insecure webserver is becoming one of the cornerstones of phishing attacks. Today, ISPs routinely block access to those servers the attackers setup in some countries that have more pressing problems than finding criminals that do damage in other countries. We can't grab those servers, b
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
real world example (Score:2)
Yesterday, I was on a site with URLs of the form:
I wondered if the path was being untainted, so I tried the following:
Bingo - I had their /etc/passwd file. And then from there, a quick look at their motd gave me the OS, and from their I got
Re: (Score:2)
YES, this EXACT example was prosecuted and convicted in England, and he didn't even get anywhere!!!
It was for a telco tsunami donation website, all he wanted to know was whether or not the site was legit or not so he tried a couple
Are you allowed to browse areas not linked? (Score:2)
not play in the window. Now its usually not difficult to determine where on the
website the media is located. If you browse that directory using automatic indexing,
and download what is there, are you breaking the rules? What about parent and subdirectories?
After all you have not guessed a password or anything, but is it considered "out of bounds"?
On a related note, do web-spiders do this? Do they just follow the links or do
It's simple (Score:2, Interesting)
One Method (Score:2)
I wonder how likely it is that the newspaper's website designer reads the comments generated by code he created. Or reads the error logs spewing SQL.
Not informing helps criminals. A LOT (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is this difficult to understand?
As for all the "doing something you shouldn't" bullshit, it's innocent until proven guilty. When did people become so terrified of freedom.
Note to Self: (Score:2)
(Posting anonymously so you don't know who I work for!)
Law - 1, Greater Good - 0 (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we should establish stricter minimum guidelines for information security and hold those we choose to share our personal information with to them. Anyone in IT in the medical industry knows about HIPAA... usually with a groan. HIPAA can levy fines, shut down operations, etc... if you're not taking "reasonable and appropriate measures" in s
Disclosure 2.0 is going to be problematic (Score:2)
Vulnerability Disclosure in the new "Software in the Cloud" World
http://www.veracode.com/blog/?p=11 [veracode.com]
-Chris
Re:It ought to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Expecting privacy on a publicly advertised service is different to people using zoom lenses to peer through the fence of your gated community.
rattling doornobs (Score:2)
Re:It ought to be (Score:4, Insightful)
She has drapes for this.
Re:It ought to be (Score:4, Funny)
Is she cute?
Does she use her drapes?
Re:It ought to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moot issue? (Score:4, Informative)
That gives small time security experts a platform of anonymity to disclose vulnerabilities to anyone (not just 3com's customers) while retaining the possibility of a reward.
Re: (Score:2)