Discovering vulnerabilities in software or systems creates ethical dilemmas. Should you disclose the flaw publicly immediately? Contact the vendor privately? The debate between coordinated and full disclosure continues to spark heated arguments.
Coordinated disclosure involves notifying affected vendors privately before public disclosure. This approach gives vendors time to develop, test, and release patches before attackers learn about the vulnerability. Many security researchers and organisations prefer this approach.
The process typically involves reporting the vulnerability to the vendor, allowing reasonable time for remediation (often 90 days), then publishing details after patches are available. This balances public interest in knowing about security issues with practical concerns about exploitation.
Full disclosure publishes vulnerability details immediately without prior vendor notification. Proponents argue this prevents vendors from sitting on vulnerabilities indefinitely and gives users transparency to make informed decisions about their security risks. Professional web application penetration testing follows coordinated disclosure, ensuring clients can remediate issues before any details are shared.
The argument for full disclosure centres on accountability. Vendors sometimes dismiss security reports, delay patches indefinitely, or downplay severity. Immediate public disclosure forces them to take security seriously and prioritise fixes.
William Fieldhouse, Director of Aardwolf Security Ltd, observes: “Vulnerability disclosure reflects broader tensions between transparency and security. When we discover issues during web application penetration testing, we work with clients to ensure proper remediation before any details are shared.”
Critics of full disclosure point out the obvious risks. Publishing exploit details before patches exist gives attackers blueprints for attacks. Users can’t protect themselves if no patch exists. The result is widespread compromise of vulnerable systems.
Bug bounty programmes have changed the landscape considerably. Organisations offer financial rewards for responsibly disclosed vulnerabilities. This incentivises security research while ensuring coordinated disclosure. Researchers get paid, vendors get time to patch, everyone benefits.
Disclosure timelines spark frequent debates. Ninety days seems standard, but is it enough? Complex vulnerabilities in large codebases might require more time for thorough fixes. Critical vulnerabilities in actively exploited software might warrant faster disclosure.
Some researchers adopt a middle ground: responsible disclosure with deadlines. They notify vendors privately but set firm public disclosure dates. If vendors fail to patch by the deadline, researchers publish regardless. This prevents indefinite delays while giving vendors fair opportunity.
Vendor relationships influence disclosure decisions. Established vulnerability disclosure programmes with clear processes and responsive security teams inspire confidence in coordinated disclosure. Vendors that ignore reports or retaliate against researchers push researchers toward full disclosure. When you request a penetration test quote, vulnerability disclosure is built into the process, protecting organisations while ensuring issues get addressed.
Public interest weighs heavily in disclosure decisions. Vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, widely deployed software, or systems handling sensitive data deserve careful handling. The potential impact of exploitation must factor into disclosure timing.
