This site is the archived OWASP Foundation Wiki and is no longer accepting Account Requests.
To view the new OWASP Foundation website, please visit https://owasp.org
Difference between revisions of "Vulnerability Disclosure Cheat Sheet"
From OWASP
(initial effort) |
(Internal full draft to wiki) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{| style="padding: 0;margin:0;margin-top:10px;text-align:left;" |- | {| style="padding: 0;margin:0;margin-top:10px;text-align:left;" |- | ||
| − | | | + | | style="border-right: 1px dotted gray;padding-right:25px;" valign="top" | |
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}''' | Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}''' | ||
| − | <br/> | + | <br /> |
__TOC__{{TOC hidden}} | __TOC__{{TOC hidden}} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
This cheatsheet is to help people report vulnerabilities they can find either randomly, either through security research. | This cheatsheet is to help people report vulnerabilities they can find either randomly, either through security research. | ||
| − | = Prepare = | + | '''Disclaimer''': No warranty - consult lawyer! |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | = Prepare = | |
| − | * identified security contacts | + | |
| − | typical security@, abuse@, noc@ (RFC2142) | + | * define the scope |
| − | * a responsible disclosure web page | + | * check if company has |
| − | * bug bounty program | + | ** identified security contacts: typical security@, abuse@, noc@ ([https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2142.txt RFC2142]) |
| − | Example platforms : hackerone, bugcrowd, synack, bountyfactory.io... | + | ** a responsible disclosure web page |
| + | ** bug bounty program. Example platforms : hackerone, bugcrowd, synack, bountyfactory.io... | ||
= Identify = | = Identify = | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | It is recommended to use responsible disclosure when dealing with | + | Remember if they are rules defined by a bounty program or laws applied to your country. |
| − | + | Document every step allowing to identify vulnerability, and if acceptable in your context, how to exploit it. | |
| − | - alert trusted 3rd party like National CERT, Data Privacy regulator if apply. | + | |
| − | + | = Report = | |
| − | Depending on | + | |
| + | It is recommended to use responsible disclosure when dealing with vulnerabilities | ||
| + | * alert the company, multiple times and persons if needed. | ||
| + | * request [https://github.com/RedHatProductSecurity/CVE-HOWTO CVE Identification]. | ||
| + | * alert trusted 3rd party like National CERT, Data Privacy regulator if apply. Eventually, security researchers like [https://krebsonsecurity.com/ Brian Krebs] or [https://www.troyhunt.com/ Troy Hunt] can be intermediate too or provide support. | ||
| + | * full/public disclosure | ||
| + | Depending on your context, each step may have more or less important time interval. Be flexible. '''''Encourage trust, transparency and openness'''''. Timeline of full disclosure is always a debate especially if there is active exploitation. Be considerate of the work necessary to do the fix while balancing with public interest. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Examples of public disclosure timeline and methodology | ||
| + | |||
| + | * RFPolicy, Rain Forest Puppy, 2000: [https://dl.packetstormsecurity.net/papers/general/rfpolicy-2.0.txt 5d] for initial contact | ||
| + | * Google Project Zero: | ||
| + | ** [https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.ca/2015/02/feedback-and-data-driven-updates-to.html 90d] after initial notification and 14d grace period | ||
| + | ** 7d after if actively exploited [[http://www.securityweek.com/google-discloses-windows-zero-day-vulnerability Microsoft, 2016]] | ||
| + | * US CERT/CC: [https://www.cert.org/vulnerability-analysis/vul-disclosure.cfm 45d] after initial report | ||
| + | * Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF): [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-christey-wysopal-vuln-disclosure-00 Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Process]. Insisted on joined work with no unique timeline | ||
| + | * Microsoft: [https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/dn467923 Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure] (CVD) | ||
| + | * ISO/IEC [http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=45170 29147:2014]: Vulnerability disclosure | ||
| + | |||
| + | Report should include all details necessary to understand vulnerability and reproduce it (exploit code for example). If you identify limiting factors, include them (Non-Admin user, use of Ms EMET, security HTTP headers...). | ||
| + | |||
| + | If possible, use encryption like PGP/GPG to encrypt your report. You can use [https://encrypt.to/ Encrypt.to] to do from a web browser if recipient has a public key. | ||
| + | If you want to remain anonymous, it's probably better to use pseudonym and one-time use email on Tor network or similar. | ||
| + | Intermediate party might also be available like [https://zerodisclo.com/ ZeroDisclo] but ensure target destination is relevant (In 2017, mostly FR & EU). | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Aftermath = | ||
| + | If you think your lessons learned would be useful to community, share it (anonymously or not). | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Legal = | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most western countries have an exception for interoperability and security research but... | ||
| + | * US: Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 1201 (f)) but EULA and contract override law. | ||
| + | * FR: [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rétro-ingénierie#L.C3.A9gislation Art.] [https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000266350&categorieLien=id L. 335-3-1 - article 22 du DADVSI] (2006), [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0024 EU Directive 2009/24] | ||
| + | * CA: Ambiguous... Bill [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4580265&Language=e&Mode=1 C-32] (2010), Bill [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5465759 C-11] (2011). Criminal code provisions (Bill [http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html C-46]) for testing without permission: 430(1.1) (“Mischief in relation to computer data”), 342.1 (“Unauthorized use of a computer”), 342.2 (“Possession of device to obtain unauthorized use of computer system or to commit mischief”). | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Definitions = | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Full disclosure | ||
| + | « Full disclosure is the practice of publishing analysis of software vulnerabilities as early as possible, making the data accessible to everyone without restriction. The primary purpose of widely disseminating information about vulnerabilities is so that potential victims are as knowledgeable as those who attack them. », [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disclosure_(computer_security) Wikipedia] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Responsible disclosure | ||
| + | « The issue is reported privately to the vendor *and no one else* until the vendor issues a patch. », [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/ecostrat/2010/07/22/coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure-bringing-balance-to-the-force/ Microsoft], 2010 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Coordinated disclosure | ||
| + | « Coordinate public release happens, ideally, when the vendor releases the update. In the case of publicly verifiable active attacks, details may be released prior to an update being released, with emphasis on giving details to protection providers. », [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/ecostrat/2010/07/22/coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure-bringing-balance-to-the-force/ Microsoft], 2010 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Private disclosure | ||
| + | « The vulnerability is released to a small group of people (not the vendor) or kept private » | ||
| + | |||
| + | Other definitions : [https://vuls.cert.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4718642 CERT/CC] | ||
= References = | = References = | ||
| − | https://www.cert.org/vulnerability-analysis/vul-disclosure.cfm | + | * https://www.cert.org/vulnerability-analysis/vul-disclosure.cfm |
| − | + | * [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/debating_full_d.html Debating Full Disclosure], Bruce Schneier, Jan2007 | |
| − | + | * [http://blog.jeremiahgrossman.com/2007/07/7-deadly-sins-of-website-vulnerability.html 7 Deadly Sins of Website Vulnerability Disclosure], Jeremiah Grossman, Jul 2007 | |
| − | + | * [http://blog.zoller.lu/2008/09/notification-and-disclosure-policy.html Notification and disclosure Policy] (update), Thierry Zoller, Sep 2008 | |
| − | + | * [http://blog.talosintelligence.com/2009/12/matts-guide-to-vendor-response.html Matt's Guide to Vendor Response], Talos, Dec 2009 | |
| − | + | * [https://www.troyhunt.com/the-responsibility-of-public-disclosure/ The responsibility of public disclosure], Troy Hunt, May 2013 | |
| − | + | * [http://blog.opensecurityresearch.com/2014/06/approaches-to-vulnerability-disclosure.html Approaches to Vulnerability Disclosure], Brad Antoniewicz, Jun 2014 | |
| − | + | * [https://www.ernw.de/download/ACM_SigComm_ENSR_Rey_Vulnerability_Disclosure.pdf Reflections on Vulnerability Disclosure Case Studies & Ethical Dilemmas], ERNW, ACM 2015 | |
| − | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality FireEye takes security firm to court over vulnerability disclosure, sep 2015 | + | * [https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/vulnerability-disclosure Good Practice Guide on Vulnerability Disclosure. From challenges to recommendations], ENISA, Jan 2016 |
| − | Google Discloses Windows Zero-Day Before Microsoft Can Issue Patch, nov 2016 | + | |
| − | Bug bounties and extortion, feb 2017 | + | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality |
| + | * [http://www.pcworld.com/article/2983144/fireeye-takes-security-firm-to-court-over-vulnerability-disclosure.html FireEye takes security firm to court over vulnerability disclosure], sep 2015 | ||
| + | * [http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-discloses-windows-zero-day-before-microsoft-can-issue-patch/ Google Discloses Windows Zero-Day Before Microsoft Can Issue Patch], nov 2016 | ||
| + | * [https://scotthelme.co.uk/bug-bounties-and-extortion/ Bug bounties and extortion], feb 2017 | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Countries specifics = | ||
| + | |||
| + | * US | ||
| + | ** https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq | ||
| + | ** https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/techftc/2016/10/dmca-security-research-exemption-consumer-devices | ||
| + | |||
| + | * CA | ||
| + | ** [http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canadian-government-hackers-1.3866336 'Messenger always gets shot': Hackers say the Canadian government doesn't want their help], CBC, Nov 2016 | ||
| + | ** [http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/06/03/some-thoughts-on-bill-c-32-an-act-to-modernize-canada’s-copyright-laws/ Some thoughts on Bill-C-32: An Act to Modernize Canada’s copyright laws], Barry Sookman, Jun 2010 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * UK | ||
| + | ** [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/31/surveillance_law_compulsion/ UK surveillance law raises concerns security researchers could be 'deputised' by the state], TheRegister, May 217 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * FR | ||
| + | ** ANSSI: https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/en-cas-dincident/vous-souhaitez-declarer-une-faille-de-securite-ou-une-vulnerabilite/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * NL | ||
| + | ** NCSC: https://www.ncsc.nl/english/security | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Feel free to provide other countries!'' | ||
= Authors and Primary Editors = | = Authors and Primary Editors = | ||
| − | OWASP Montréal, | + | OWASP Montréal, v1.0, Jul 2017. https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Montréal |
| + | |||
| + | Thanks to OWASP Montréal chapter, @el_d33 and gosecure.ca team for review! | ||
= Other Cheatsheets = | = Other Cheatsheets = | ||
| Line 52: | Line 128: | ||
{{Cheatsheet_Navigation_Body}} | {{Cheatsheet_Navigation_Body}} | ||
[[Category:Cheatsheets]] | [[Category:Cheatsheets]] | ||
| + | |} | ||
Revision as of 14:42, 6 August 2017
|
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): 08/6/2017
DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESSIntroductionThis cheatsheet is to help people report vulnerabilities they can find either randomly, either through security research. Disclaimer: No warranty - consult lawyer! Prepare
IdentifyRemember if they are rules defined by a bounty program or laws applied to your country. Document every step allowing to identify vulnerability, and if acceptable in your context, how to exploit it. ReportIt is recommended to use responsible disclosure when dealing with vulnerabilities
Depending on your context, each step may have more or less important time interval. Be flexible. Encourage trust, transparency and openness. Timeline of full disclosure is always a debate especially if there is active exploitation. Be considerate of the work necessary to do the fix while balancing with public interest. Examples of public disclosure timeline and methodology
Report should include all details necessary to understand vulnerability and reproduce it (exploit code for example). If you identify limiting factors, include them (Non-Admin user, use of Ms EMET, security HTTP headers...). If possible, use encryption like PGP/GPG to encrypt your report. You can use Encrypt.to to do from a web browser if recipient has a public key. If you want to remain anonymous, it's probably better to use pseudonym and one-time use email on Tor network or similar. Intermediate party might also be available like ZeroDisclo but ensure target destination is relevant (In 2017, mostly FR & EU). AftermathIf you think your lessons learned would be useful to community, share it (anonymously or not). LegalMost western countries have an exception for interoperability and security research but...
Definitions
« Full disclosure is the practice of publishing analysis of software vulnerabilities as early as possible, making the data accessible to everyone without restriction. The primary purpose of widely disseminating information about vulnerabilities is so that potential victims are as knowledgeable as those who attack them. », Wikipedia
« The issue is reported privately to the vendor *and no one else* until the vendor issues a patch. », Microsoft, 2010
« Coordinate public release happens, ideally, when the vendor releases the update. In the case of publicly verifiable active attacks, details may be released prior to an update being released, with emphasis on giving details to protection providers. », Microsoft, 2010
« The vulnerability is released to a small group of people (not the vendor) or kept private » Other definitions : CERT/CC References
Countries specifics
Feel free to provide other countries! Authors and Primary EditorsOWASP Montréal, v1.0, Jul 2017. https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Montréal Thanks to OWASP Montréal chapter, @el_d33 and gosecure.ca team for review! Other Cheatsheets |
