[QUOTE=Elspin;46940225]Google's program is [b]not as important as the security of millions of people[/b]. The entire point of their program is to force teams to fix security holes faster, and microsoft being 2 days late on a deadline is not going to destroy the entire value of their program. All they've ended up doing is compromise people's security of millions as part of their program to encourage better security. Good job, google![/QUOTE]
No, it's going to damage the credibility of the deadline though. This event, while casting Google in a bad light to many, sent a very strong message that the deadline is the deadline and you better meet it if you want to release a fix before public disclosure.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;46941102]No, it's going to damage the credibility of the deadline though. This event, while casting Google in a bad light to many, sent a very strong message that the deadline is the deadline and you better meet it if you want to release a fix before public disclosure.[/QUOTE]
All it seems to me imo is that they made themselves look like children to security experts, like the one quoted in the article (he is not and never has been an employee of microsoft):
[QUOTE]"I feel sorry for the users, who could be impacted by Google's schoolyard antics," tweeted expert Graham Cluley, who noted the company had been criticised for similar behaviour in the past.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Agoat;46937447]Why is Google acting like the internet police again? I don't think it matters who "warned" who, Google needs to fuck off and not be posting exploits of the most popular OS on the market.[/QUOTE]
Why does it matter who publishes the information? As long as its done using reasonable disclosure anyone who discovers an exploit should make it known.
[editline]16th January 2015[/editline]
Also the set deadline is kind of important, if there is no deadline (that is kept to) certain companies will just ignore the exploit. A great example of this is the customised crap making website moonpig, it had an exploit that allowed anyone to view anyone's personal details and they failed to fix it for ~2 years from the first contact to the person releasing the exploit.
They had a release planned two days after the arbitrary deadline, though. IMO if they notify Google before the deadline that a release is planned on a set date in the (very) near future, it should not be a problem to refrain from disclosing the exploit.
Or Google could just not act like the internet police.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;46944900]They had a release planned two days after the arbitrary deadline, though. IMO if they notify Google before the deadline that a release is planned on a set date in the (very) near future, it should not be a problem to refrain from disclosing the exploit.
Or Google could just not act like the internet police.[/QUOTE]
You're acting more like the internet police than Google. The date was set in stone. It's 100% microsoft's fault for prolonging the inevitable. Everyone blamed Oracle when they would wait a stupid amount of time to fix Java's exploits, but when Microsoft does the same thing, everyone hops on Microsoft the savior
[QUOTE=Map in a box;46949845]You're acting more like the internet police than Google. The date was set in stone. It's 100% microsoft's fault for prolonging the inevitable. Everyone blamed Oracle when they would wait a stupid amount of time to fix Java's exploits, but when Microsoft does the same thing, everyone hops on Microsoft the savior[/QUOTE]
If by "set in stone" you mean "picked arbitrarily by Google to enforce on everyone else" and by "stupid amount of time" you mean "two days" then sure.
Is two days worth putting millions of people at risk by disclosing a security exploit because Google said "do this at this time or else"? Is it [I]really[/I]? The only people who could be hurt in this situation are the consumers, not Microsoft. Isn't the whole point of the project to protect people from security exploits rather than put people at risk with them?
This brings up my point about why Google shouldn't be acting like the internet police. Their only ammo is to put another company's customers at risk and hope the company is pressured to fix it. You don't protect people by putting them in harm's way. If some entity with actual authority enforced this, they would do it with fines or some other form of reasonable punishment.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;46949991]If by "set in stone" you mean "picked arbitrarily by Google to enforce on everyone else" and by "stupid amount of time" you mean "two days" then sure.
Is two days worth putting millions of people at risk by disclosing a security exploit because Google said "do this at this time or else"? Is it [I]really[/I]? The only people who could be hurt in this situation are the consumers, not Microsoft. Isn't the whole point of the project to protect people from security exploits rather than put them at risk?
This brings up my point about why Google shouldn't be acting like the internet police. Their only ammo is to put another company's customers at risk and hope the company is pressured to fix it. You don't protect people by putting them in harm's way. If some entity with actual authority enforced this, they would do it with fines or some other form of reasonable punishment.[/QUOTE]
Really this entire thread has been two camps of people repeating the exact same argument:
1)One side thinks that their whole program will fall apart due to slippery slope fallacy if they give one company a couple days slack, and therefore they must enforce a rigid time requirement despite not knowing anything about how long it will take to fix
2)One side who thinks that it's not worth the people's security being compromised and releasing the exploit early when a fix is promised to be on the way just 2% late on the deadline
and I'm kind of of the opinion that the people in cat 1 are pretty loony
[QUOTE=Elspin;46950054]Really this entire thread has been two camps of people repeating the exact same argument:
1)One side thinks that their whole program will fall apart due to slippery slope fallacy if they give one company a couple days slack, and therefore they must enforce a rigid time requirement despite not knowing anything about how long it will take to fix
2)One side who thinks that it's not worth the people's security being compromised and releasing the exploit early when a fix is promised to be on the way just 2% late on the deadline
and I'm kind of of the opinion that the people in cat 1 are pretty loony[/QUOTE]
Even though the only people who actually stand to lose anything in this pointless Google posturing is, ironically, the consumers. As it stands, people should seriously question whether a system like this is an actual good thing when the people it's suppose to protect are the ones getting hurt.
And mind you, this is not the first time this has been an issue and will not be the last time either.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;46944900]They had a release planned two days after the arbitrary deadline, though. IMO if they notify Google before the deadline that a release is planned on a set date in the (very) near future, it should not be a problem to refrain from disclosing the exploit.
Or Google could just not act like the internet police.[/QUOTE]
What was stopping them from releasing it earlier?
If there is a security exploit then it should be fixed as soon as possible, like with Moonpig.
Also, if not Google it could be somebody else.
[QUOTE=Elspin;46950054]Really this entire thread has been two camps of people repeating the exact same argument:
1)One side thinks that their whole program will fall apart due to slippery slope fallacy if they give one company a couple days slack, and therefore they must enforce a rigid time requirement despite not knowing anything about how long it will take to fix
2)One side who thinks that it's not worth the people's security being compromised and releasing the exploit early when a fix is promised to be on the way just 2% late on the deadline
and I'm kind of of the opinion that the people in cat 1 are pretty loony[/QUOTE]
I really don't get the arguments of category 1. The purpose of Project Zero is to force lazy developers to actually deal with security issues. If the developer is showing signs of actually dealing with it then you should be flexible about the deadline. Only release it publicly if they're showing no intent to deal with it or are taking an absurdly long time. If they're playing nice and simply ask for a two day extension (or even the month Microsoft originally asked for because, as has been pointed out, we don't know just how much code they had to rewrite to fix the issue) then Google should give them a little leeway since they're showing obvious intent to get the problem taken care of.
[QUOTE=woolio1;46910456]Hey, if you're alerted of something critical and refuse to fix it, why should others stand by and let you get away with not supporting your customers and leaving them at risk?[/QUOTE]
This applies to Google even more so than Microsoft.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.