Should we release the security issues we found in our product as CVE or we can just update those on weekly...












58















We are a vendor providing a product that is being used in enterprises. We know that those companies having periodic CVE scans on products they are using part of their vulnerability management process. My question is, do we have to raise a CVE if our own security researcher found a vulnerability in our product or we can just raise this vulnerability in the weekly security updates we publish in our official website?










share|improve this question















This question had a bounty worth +50
reputation from Filopn that ended 6 hours ago. Grace period ends in 17 hours


This question has not received enough attention.












  • 1





    It seems you sell your product. Do you have a reasonable way of communicating the information to all your clients, and only to your clients? (i.e. by sending an e-mail instead of publishing an announcement on your website). The answer to this question may help you choose between the answers below.

    – Law29
    Mar 16 at 4:59
















58















We are a vendor providing a product that is being used in enterprises. We know that those companies having periodic CVE scans on products they are using part of their vulnerability management process. My question is, do we have to raise a CVE if our own security researcher found a vulnerability in our product or we can just raise this vulnerability in the weekly security updates we publish in our official website?










share|improve this question















This question had a bounty worth +50
reputation from Filopn that ended 6 hours ago. Grace period ends in 17 hours


This question has not received enough attention.












  • 1





    It seems you sell your product. Do you have a reasonable way of communicating the information to all your clients, and only to your clients? (i.e. by sending an e-mail instead of publishing an announcement on your website). The answer to this question may help you choose between the answers below.

    – Law29
    Mar 16 at 4:59














58












58








58


4






We are a vendor providing a product that is being used in enterprises. We know that those companies having periodic CVE scans on products they are using part of their vulnerability management process. My question is, do we have to raise a CVE if our own security researcher found a vulnerability in our product or we can just raise this vulnerability in the weekly security updates we publish in our official website?










share|improve this question














We are a vendor providing a product that is being used in enterprises. We know that those companies having periodic CVE scans on products they are using part of their vulnerability management process. My question is, do we have to raise a CVE if our own security researcher found a vulnerability in our product or we can just raise this vulnerability in the weekly security updates we publish in our official website?







vulnerability known-vulnerabilities cve






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 13 at 11:27









FilopnFilopn

522214




522214






This question had a bounty worth +50
reputation from Filopn that ended 6 hours ago. Grace period ends in 17 hours


This question has not received enough attention.








This question had a bounty worth +50
reputation from Filopn that ended 6 hours ago. Grace period ends in 17 hours


This question has not received enough attention.










  • 1





    It seems you sell your product. Do you have a reasonable way of communicating the information to all your clients, and only to your clients? (i.e. by sending an e-mail instead of publishing an announcement on your website). The answer to this question may help you choose between the answers below.

    – Law29
    Mar 16 at 4:59














  • 1





    It seems you sell your product. Do you have a reasonable way of communicating the information to all your clients, and only to your clients? (i.e. by sending an e-mail instead of publishing an announcement on your website). The answer to this question may help you choose between the answers below.

    – Law29
    Mar 16 at 4:59








1




1





It seems you sell your product. Do you have a reasonable way of communicating the information to all your clients, and only to your clients? (i.e. by sending an e-mail instead of publishing an announcement on your website). The answer to this question may help you choose between the answers below.

– Law29
Mar 16 at 4:59





It seems you sell your product. Do you have a reasonable way of communicating the information to all your clients, and only to your clients? (i.e. by sending an e-mail instead of publishing an announcement on your website). The answer to this question may help you choose between the answers below.

– Law29
Mar 16 at 4:59










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















66














You can do either, but I recommend applying for a CVE so that customers who get threat intelligence feeds are more likely to notice the issue and expedite a patch. Assigning a CVE also makes it easier to reference a specific vulnerability in general communications if you need to later. It's also a signal to your customers that you take security transparency seriously.



CVEs are assigned and managed by MITRE, and you can use the CVE application form to make a request.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Domyou have first hand experience with applying as a Vendor for a commercial product for a cve at the root cna?

    – eckes
    Mar 15 at 11:19






  • 1





    @eckes I've never done the process myself, but I've worked with and for vendors that have applied for CVEs and from what I could tell the process was no different than if a 3rd party applied for it.

    – Polynomial
    Mar 15 at 11:21






  • 1





    Yes, should be the same process, the question is just how fast was the turn around and what happens after repeating it a few times a year

    – eckes
    Mar 15 at 11:22






  • 2





    @eckes Oh, CVE assignment turnaround is generally fairly quick. I've had them assigned within hours before. Longest wait I ever had was 6 days but there were extenuating circumstances (two people responsible for assigning CVEs at MITRE were sick at the same time).

    – Polynomial
    Mar 15 at 11:24






  • 1





    Good to know, sounds like this has improved!

    – eckes
    Mar 15 at 11:36



















23














It would be helpful to publish the CVE so that others know it's necessary to update: as you said, they can see it in threat intelligence feeds (or CVE scans) instead of having to read the changelog of every update to decide whether they need to update.



Additionally, as a pentester, it helps us a lot in our work. If we find SAPConnectorDeluxe 4.1.39, the first thing we do is check a CVE database for any vulnerabilities. Even if the software is proprietary and in use for only a few companies, it is useful for us to know the risks of running that software so that we can advise the customer correctly.



It also tells us how frequently and what kind of issues are being found: if we see that a small software component had 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, we know the developers don't get the time to include security in their development process. In such a case, it's very likely that more vulnerabilities will be found, or are already found by malicious parties.



Submitting CVEs is not common if the software is only used internally. If we find custom software, we do some analysis (depending on how much time we have) and advise to have someone review its security more thoroughly. Info about internal products would not help anyone outside the company, so there is no need to publish it to a central database like CVE.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    This answer spends quite a bit of time discussing a reason not to file a CVE, which is that too many can make you look bad. I think the benefits of demonstrating your commitment to security outweigh this, but this answer won't help convince anyone of that.

    – sondra.kinsey
    Mar 14 at 17:31






  • 2





    On a similar note, too many CVEs can also make you an attractive target for hackers. If you patched 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, then a hacker can see this as likely evidence of an 11th, and focus a lot more energy on you than he would otherwise. Even if your actions showed commitment to security and you patched all of your overflow vulns, the extra attention is likely to expose an unrelated problem. So, at a point, too many CVEs themselves can become a security liability.

    – Nosajimiki
    Mar 14 at 19:47



















8














You are not required to request a CVE, but you are free to do so when you think it will be benificial.



A CVE is just a central number that identifies a vulnerability, which can assist when communicating about vulnerabilities. CVE's are particularly helpful when there are multiple parties involved. Anyone can request a CVE in your product, but in my opinion it looks better if you do it yourself before somebody else does.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    Small remark: You say "it looks better if you [request a CVE for a vuln in your product] yourself before somebody else does", but that sounds like the developer of the software should always snatch up the CVE before anyone else can request it. To me, that would feel like taking part of the credit. I'd rather say it should be the person who found it -- which in this case is the company itself, but it often (usually?) isn't. Not sure how you meant it.

    – Luc
    Mar 13 at 20:27



















6














I think the most important question is if your product comes with an auto-updater. If it auto-updates by default, then a CVE can sometimes do more harm than good by putting your product into the realm of awareness for many hackers who may otherwise not know you even exist. They can see your CVE history, and get a good feeling about your security posture. If they see a lot of fixes for "amature" mistakes, then your product might easily come under the scrutiny of people who know how to find the more obscure stuff that you may have otherwise gotten luck enough to avoid.



Also, products that are unlikely to be patched even if you release a CVE can do more harm than good. Most IoT devices never get patched, so, CVEs just tell hackers which ones are easy prey.



In contrast, if your product typically requires a manual update that is likely to happen if you release a CVE, then you should probably do it.






share|improve this answer































    2














    If this is a really critical issue, then you might patch the issue and keep it secret for as long as possible.



    Then the customers have a longer time frame for applying software updates.



    Also make sure to use as much binary obfuscation as possible, in order to hinder "differential reverse engineering" after delivering the patch.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 8





      By keeping it secret, there is not one effect (the one you mention) but two effects: yes, customers have more time to upgrade because bad guys might not realize there is a vulnerability, but also, customers won't be aware there is an issue and might go "meh, we don't need these new features and didn't notice any bugs, no need to spend sysadmin hours to upgrade it". That said, you did get me thinking: it might be good to, instead, communicate it to customers privately before making it public (as is done with responsible disclosure).

      – Luc
      Mar 13 at 20:41






    • 1





      @Luc: I don't think that Mike is suggesting keeping the existence of a patch secret. It's the details of the issue that are kept secret. Customers should be motivated to install a patch listed as "fixed remote code execution vuln" based on the severity, without understanding the bug itself.

      – Ben Voigt
      Mar 14 at 18:43






    • 1





      @BenVoigt CVEs usually don't include enough detail to exploit an issue, only in some cases they're later updated to link to a page with more details. But indeed, Mike might have meant that, I don't know.

      – Luc
      Mar 14 at 19:27








    • 3





      @Luc: Just grabbing a random recent CVE, CVE-2018-7183. The title is "Buffer overflow in the decodearr function in ntpq in ntp 4.2.8p6 through 4.2.8p10 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging an ntpq query and sending a response with a crafted array." That is not precisely "enough detail to exploit an issue" but it certainly is enough to give attackers a huge headstart.

      – Ben Voigt
      Mar 14 at 20:07






    • 3





      @BenVoigt just a remark, if you look at open source CVEs there are by nature more complete and detailed. Commercial vendors might have a policy not to disclose details. Oracle for example is notoriously bad.

      – eckes
      Mar 15 at 11:40



















    1














    Few companies will apply patches immediately, most will have some quality control and evaluation before any update is put into their systems. The CVE definition allows them to know what vulnerabilities are in the current version of the software. Then can then evaluate that vulnerability and make an informed choice of when they will apply the update.






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "162"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f205271%2fshould-we-release-the-security-issues-we-found-in-our-product-as-cve-or-we-can-j%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      66














      You can do either, but I recommend applying for a CVE so that customers who get threat intelligence feeds are more likely to notice the issue and expedite a patch. Assigning a CVE also makes it easier to reference a specific vulnerability in general communications if you need to later. It's also a signal to your customers that you take security transparency seriously.



      CVEs are assigned and managed by MITRE, and you can use the CVE application form to make a request.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Domyou have first hand experience with applying as a Vendor for a commercial product for a cve at the root cna?

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:19






      • 1





        @eckes I've never done the process myself, but I've worked with and for vendors that have applied for CVEs and from what I could tell the process was no different than if a 3rd party applied for it.

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:21






      • 1





        Yes, should be the same process, the question is just how fast was the turn around and what happens after repeating it a few times a year

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:22






      • 2





        @eckes Oh, CVE assignment turnaround is generally fairly quick. I've had them assigned within hours before. Longest wait I ever had was 6 days but there were extenuating circumstances (two people responsible for assigning CVEs at MITRE were sick at the same time).

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:24






      • 1





        Good to know, sounds like this has improved!

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:36
















      66














      You can do either, but I recommend applying for a CVE so that customers who get threat intelligence feeds are more likely to notice the issue and expedite a patch. Assigning a CVE also makes it easier to reference a specific vulnerability in general communications if you need to later. It's also a signal to your customers that you take security transparency seriously.



      CVEs are assigned and managed by MITRE, and you can use the CVE application form to make a request.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Domyou have first hand experience with applying as a Vendor for a commercial product for a cve at the root cna?

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:19






      • 1





        @eckes I've never done the process myself, but I've worked with and for vendors that have applied for CVEs and from what I could tell the process was no different than if a 3rd party applied for it.

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:21






      • 1





        Yes, should be the same process, the question is just how fast was the turn around and what happens after repeating it a few times a year

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:22






      • 2





        @eckes Oh, CVE assignment turnaround is generally fairly quick. I've had them assigned within hours before. Longest wait I ever had was 6 days but there were extenuating circumstances (two people responsible for assigning CVEs at MITRE were sick at the same time).

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:24






      • 1





        Good to know, sounds like this has improved!

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:36














      66












      66








      66







      You can do either, but I recommend applying for a CVE so that customers who get threat intelligence feeds are more likely to notice the issue and expedite a patch. Assigning a CVE also makes it easier to reference a specific vulnerability in general communications if you need to later. It's also a signal to your customers that you take security transparency seriously.



      CVEs are assigned and managed by MITRE, and you can use the CVE application form to make a request.






      share|improve this answer













      You can do either, but I recommend applying for a CVE so that customers who get threat intelligence feeds are more likely to notice the issue and expedite a patch. Assigning a CVE also makes it easier to reference a specific vulnerability in general communications if you need to later. It's also a signal to your customers that you take security transparency seriously.



      CVEs are assigned and managed by MITRE, and you can use the CVE application form to make a request.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Mar 13 at 11:33









      PolynomialPolynomial

      101k31246339




      101k31246339








      • 1





        Domyou have first hand experience with applying as a Vendor for a commercial product for a cve at the root cna?

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:19






      • 1





        @eckes I've never done the process myself, but I've worked with and for vendors that have applied for CVEs and from what I could tell the process was no different than if a 3rd party applied for it.

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:21






      • 1





        Yes, should be the same process, the question is just how fast was the turn around and what happens after repeating it a few times a year

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:22






      • 2





        @eckes Oh, CVE assignment turnaround is generally fairly quick. I've had them assigned within hours before. Longest wait I ever had was 6 days but there were extenuating circumstances (two people responsible for assigning CVEs at MITRE were sick at the same time).

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:24






      • 1





        Good to know, sounds like this has improved!

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:36














      • 1





        Domyou have first hand experience with applying as a Vendor for a commercial product for a cve at the root cna?

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:19






      • 1





        @eckes I've never done the process myself, but I've worked with and for vendors that have applied for CVEs and from what I could tell the process was no different than if a 3rd party applied for it.

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:21






      • 1





        Yes, should be the same process, the question is just how fast was the turn around and what happens after repeating it a few times a year

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:22






      • 2





        @eckes Oh, CVE assignment turnaround is generally fairly quick. I've had them assigned within hours before. Longest wait I ever had was 6 days but there were extenuating circumstances (two people responsible for assigning CVEs at MITRE were sick at the same time).

        – Polynomial
        Mar 15 at 11:24






      • 1





        Good to know, sounds like this has improved!

        – eckes
        Mar 15 at 11:36








      1




      1





      Domyou have first hand experience with applying as a Vendor for a commercial product for a cve at the root cna?

      – eckes
      Mar 15 at 11:19





      Domyou have first hand experience with applying as a Vendor for a commercial product for a cve at the root cna?

      – eckes
      Mar 15 at 11:19




      1




      1





      @eckes I've never done the process myself, but I've worked with and for vendors that have applied for CVEs and from what I could tell the process was no different than if a 3rd party applied for it.

      – Polynomial
      Mar 15 at 11:21





      @eckes I've never done the process myself, but I've worked with and for vendors that have applied for CVEs and from what I could tell the process was no different than if a 3rd party applied for it.

      – Polynomial
      Mar 15 at 11:21




      1




      1





      Yes, should be the same process, the question is just how fast was the turn around and what happens after repeating it a few times a year

      – eckes
      Mar 15 at 11:22





      Yes, should be the same process, the question is just how fast was the turn around and what happens after repeating it a few times a year

      – eckes
      Mar 15 at 11:22




      2




      2





      @eckes Oh, CVE assignment turnaround is generally fairly quick. I've had them assigned within hours before. Longest wait I ever had was 6 days but there were extenuating circumstances (two people responsible for assigning CVEs at MITRE were sick at the same time).

      – Polynomial
      Mar 15 at 11:24





      @eckes Oh, CVE assignment turnaround is generally fairly quick. I've had them assigned within hours before. Longest wait I ever had was 6 days but there were extenuating circumstances (two people responsible for assigning CVEs at MITRE were sick at the same time).

      – Polynomial
      Mar 15 at 11:24




      1




      1





      Good to know, sounds like this has improved!

      – eckes
      Mar 15 at 11:36





      Good to know, sounds like this has improved!

      – eckes
      Mar 15 at 11:36













      23














      It would be helpful to publish the CVE so that others know it's necessary to update: as you said, they can see it in threat intelligence feeds (or CVE scans) instead of having to read the changelog of every update to decide whether they need to update.



      Additionally, as a pentester, it helps us a lot in our work. If we find SAPConnectorDeluxe 4.1.39, the first thing we do is check a CVE database for any vulnerabilities. Even if the software is proprietary and in use for only a few companies, it is useful for us to know the risks of running that software so that we can advise the customer correctly.



      It also tells us how frequently and what kind of issues are being found: if we see that a small software component had 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, we know the developers don't get the time to include security in their development process. In such a case, it's very likely that more vulnerabilities will be found, or are already found by malicious parties.



      Submitting CVEs is not common if the software is only used internally. If we find custom software, we do some analysis (depending on how much time we have) and advise to have someone review its security more thoroughly. Info about internal products would not help anyone outside the company, so there is no need to publish it to a central database like CVE.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        This answer spends quite a bit of time discussing a reason not to file a CVE, which is that too many can make you look bad. I think the benefits of demonstrating your commitment to security outweigh this, but this answer won't help convince anyone of that.

        – sondra.kinsey
        Mar 14 at 17:31






      • 2





        On a similar note, too many CVEs can also make you an attractive target for hackers. If you patched 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, then a hacker can see this as likely evidence of an 11th, and focus a lot more energy on you than he would otherwise. Even if your actions showed commitment to security and you patched all of your overflow vulns, the extra attention is likely to expose an unrelated problem. So, at a point, too many CVEs themselves can become a security liability.

        – Nosajimiki
        Mar 14 at 19:47
















      23














      It would be helpful to publish the CVE so that others know it's necessary to update: as you said, they can see it in threat intelligence feeds (or CVE scans) instead of having to read the changelog of every update to decide whether they need to update.



      Additionally, as a pentester, it helps us a lot in our work. If we find SAPConnectorDeluxe 4.1.39, the first thing we do is check a CVE database for any vulnerabilities. Even if the software is proprietary and in use for only a few companies, it is useful for us to know the risks of running that software so that we can advise the customer correctly.



      It also tells us how frequently and what kind of issues are being found: if we see that a small software component had 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, we know the developers don't get the time to include security in their development process. In such a case, it's very likely that more vulnerabilities will be found, or are already found by malicious parties.



      Submitting CVEs is not common if the software is only used internally. If we find custom software, we do some analysis (depending on how much time we have) and advise to have someone review its security more thoroughly. Info about internal products would not help anyone outside the company, so there is no need to publish it to a central database like CVE.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        This answer spends quite a bit of time discussing a reason not to file a CVE, which is that too many can make you look bad. I think the benefits of demonstrating your commitment to security outweigh this, but this answer won't help convince anyone of that.

        – sondra.kinsey
        Mar 14 at 17:31






      • 2





        On a similar note, too many CVEs can also make you an attractive target for hackers. If you patched 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, then a hacker can see this as likely evidence of an 11th, and focus a lot more energy on you than he would otherwise. Even if your actions showed commitment to security and you patched all of your overflow vulns, the extra attention is likely to expose an unrelated problem. So, at a point, too many CVEs themselves can become a security liability.

        – Nosajimiki
        Mar 14 at 19:47














      23












      23








      23







      It would be helpful to publish the CVE so that others know it's necessary to update: as you said, they can see it in threat intelligence feeds (or CVE scans) instead of having to read the changelog of every update to decide whether they need to update.



      Additionally, as a pentester, it helps us a lot in our work. If we find SAPConnectorDeluxe 4.1.39, the first thing we do is check a CVE database for any vulnerabilities. Even if the software is proprietary and in use for only a few companies, it is useful for us to know the risks of running that software so that we can advise the customer correctly.



      It also tells us how frequently and what kind of issues are being found: if we see that a small software component had 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, we know the developers don't get the time to include security in their development process. In such a case, it's very likely that more vulnerabilities will be found, or are already found by malicious parties.



      Submitting CVEs is not common if the software is only used internally. If we find custom software, we do some analysis (depending on how much time we have) and advise to have someone review its security more thoroughly. Info about internal products would not help anyone outside the company, so there is no need to publish it to a central database like CVE.






      share|improve this answer













      It would be helpful to publish the CVE so that others know it's necessary to update: as you said, they can see it in threat intelligence feeds (or CVE scans) instead of having to read the changelog of every update to decide whether they need to update.



      Additionally, as a pentester, it helps us a lot in our work. If we find SAPConnectorDeluxe 4.1.39, the first thing we do is check a CVE database for any vulnerabilities. Even if the software is proprietary and in use for only a few companies, it is useful for us to know the risks of running that software so that we can advise the customer correctly.



      It also tells us how frequently and what kind of issues are being found: if we see that a small software component had 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, we know the developers don't get the time to include security in their development process. In such a case, it's very likely that more vulnerabilities will be found, or are already found by malicious parties.



      Submitting CVEs is not common if the software is only used internally. If we find custom software, we do some analysis (depending on how much time we have) and advise to have someone review its security more thoroughly. Info about internal products would not help anyone outside the company, so there is no need to publish it to a central database like CVE.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Mar 13 at 13:10









      LucLuc

      23.6k644102




      23.6k644102








      • 2





        This answer spends quite a bit of time discussing a reason not to file a CVE, which is that too many can make you look bad. I think the benefits of demonstrating your commitment to security outweigh this, but this answer won't help convince anyone of that.

        – sondra.kinsey
        Mar 14 at 17:31






      • 2





        On a similar note, too many CVEs can also make you an attractive target for hackers. If you patched 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, then a hacker can see this as likely evidence of an 11th, and focus a lot more energy on you than he would otherwise. Even if your actions showed commitment to security and you patched all of your overflow vulns, the extra attention is likely to expose an unrelated problem. So, at a point, too many CVEs themselves can become a security liability.

        – Nosajimiki
        Mar 14 at 19:47














      • 2





        This answer spends quite a bit of time discussing a reason not to file a CVE, which is that too many can make you look bad. I think the benefits of demonstrating your commitment to security outweigh this, but this answer won't help convince anyone of that.

        – sondra.kinsey
        Mar 14 at 17:31






      • 2





        On a similar note, too many CVEs can also make you an attractive target for hackers. If you patched 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, then a hacker can see this as likely evidence of an 11th, and focus a lot more energy on you than he would otherwise. Even if your actions showed commitment to security and you patched all of your overflow vulns, the extra attention is likely to expose an unrelated problem. So, at a point, too many CVEs themselves can become a security liability.

        – Nosajimiki
        Mar 14 at 19:47








      2




      2





      This answer spends quite a bit of time discussing a reason not to file a CVE, which is that too many can make you look bad. I think the benefits of demonstrating your commitment to security outweigh this, but this answer won't help convince anyone of that.

      – sondra.kinsey
      Mar 14 at 17:31





      This answer spends quite a bit of time discussing a reason not to file a CVE, which is that too many can make you look bad. I think the benefits of demonstrating your commitment to security outweigh this, but this answer won't help convince anyone of that.

      – sondra.kinsey
      Mar 14 at 17:31




      2




      2





      On a similar note, too many CVEs can also make you an attractive target for hackers. If you patched 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, then a hacker can see this as likely evidence of an 11th, and focus a lot more energy on you than he would otherwise. Even if your actions showed commitment to security and you patched all of your overflow vulns, the extra attention is likely to expose an unrelated problem. So, at a point, too many CVEs themselves can become a security liability.

      – Nosajimiki
      Mar 14 at 19:47





      On a similar note, too many CVEs can also make you an attractive target for hackers. If you patched 10 buffer overflow vulnerabilities in the past year, then a hacker can see this as likely evidence of an 11th, and focus a lot more energy on you than he would otherwise. Even if your actions showed commitment to security and you patched all of your overflow vulns, the extra attention is likely to expose an unrelated problem. So, at a point, too many CVEs themselves can become a security liability.

      – Nosajimiki
      Mar 14 at 19:47











      8














      You are not required to request a CVE, but you are free to do so when you think it will be benificial.



      A CVE is just a central number that identifies a vulnerability, which can assist when communicating about vulnerabilities. CVE's are particularly helpful when there are multiple parties involved. Anyone can request a CVE in your product, but in my opinion it looks better if you do it yourself before somebody else does.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        Small remark: You say "it looks better if you [request a CVE for a vuln in your product] yourself before somebody else does", but that sounds like the developer of the software should always snatch up the CVE before anyone else can request it. To me, that would feel like taking part of the credit. I'd rather say it should be the person who found it -- which in this case is the company itself, but it often (usually?) isn't. Not sure how you meant it.

        – Luc
        Mar 13 at 20:27
















      8














      You are not required to request a CVE, but you are free to do so when you think it will be benificial.



      A CVE is just a central number that identifies a vulnerability, which can assist when communicating about vulnerabilities. CVE's are particularly helpful when there are multiple parties involved. Anyone can request a CVE in your product, but in my opinion it looks better if you do it yourself before somebody else does.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        Small remark: You say "it looks better if you [request a CVE for a vuln in your product] yourself before somebody else does", but that sounds like the developer of the software should always snatch up the CVE before anyone else can request it. To me, that would feel like taking part of the credit. I'd rather say it should be the person who found it -- which in this case is the company itself, but it often (usually?) isn't. Not sure how you meant it.

        – Luc
        Mar 13 at 20:27














      8












      8








      8







      You are not required to request a CVE, but you are free to do so when you think it will be benificial.



      A CVE is just a central number that identifies a vulnerability, which can assist when communicating about vulnerabilities. CVE's are particularly helpful when there are multiple parties involved. Anyone can request a CVE in your product, but in my opinion it looks better if you do it yourself before somebody else does.






      share|improve this answer













      You are not required to request a CVE, but you are free to do so when you think it will be benificial.



      A CVE is just a central number that identifies a vulnerability, which can assist when communicating about vulnerabilities. CVE's are particularly helpful when there are multiple parties involved. Anyone can request a CVE in your product, but in my opinion it looks better if you do it yourself before somebody else does.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Mar 13 at 12:29









      SjoerdSjoerd

      20.4k94865




      20.4k94865








      • 2





        Small remark: You say "it looks better if you [request a CVE for a vuln in your product] yourself before somebody else does", but that sounds like the developer of the software should always snatch up the CVE before anyone else can request it. To me, that would feel like taking part of the credit. I'd rather say it should be the person who found it -- which in this case is the company itself, but it often (usually?) isn't. Not sure how you meant it.

        – Luc
        Mar 13 at 20:27














      • 2





        Small remark: You say "it looks better if you [request a CVE for a vuln in your product] yourself before somebody else does", but that sounds like the developer of the software should always snatch up the CVE before anyone else can request it. To me, that would feel like taking part of the credit. I'd rather say it should be the person who found it -- which in this case is the company itself, but it often (usually?) isn't. Not sure how you meant it.

        – Luc
        Mar 13 at 20:27








      2




      2





      Small remark: You say "it looks better if you [request a CVE for a vuln in your product] yourself before somebody else does", but that sounds like the developer of the software should always snatch up the CVE before anyone else can request it. To me, that would feel like taking part of the credit. I'd rather say it should be the person who found it -- which in this case is the company itself, but it often (usually?) isn't. Not sure how you meant it.

      – Luc
      Mar 13 at 20:27





      Small remark: You say "it looks better if you [request a CVE for a vuln in your product] yourself before somebody else does", but that sounds like the developer of the software should always snatch up the CVE before anyone else can request it. To me, that would feel like taking part of the credit. I'd rather say it should be the person who found it -- which in this case is the company itself, but it often (usually?) isn't. Not sure how you meant it.

      – Luc
      Mar 13 at 20:27











      6














      I think the most important question is if your product comes with an auto-updater. If it auto-updates by default, then a CVE can sometimes do more harm than good by putting your product into the realm of awareness for many hackers who may otherwise not know you even exist. They can see your CVE history, and get a good feeling about your security posture. If they see a lot of fixes for "amature" mistakes, then your product might easily come under the scrutiny of people who know how to find the more obscure stuff that you may have otherwise gotten luck enough to avoid.



      Also, products that are unlikely to be patched even if you release a CVE can do more harm than good. Most IoT devices never get patched, so, CVEs just tell hackers which ones are easy prey.



      In contrast, if your product typically requires a manual update that is likely to happen if you release a CVE, then you should probably do it.






      share|improve this answer




























        6














        I think the most important question is if your product comes with an auto-updater. If it auto-updates by default, then a CVE can sometimes do more harm than good by putting your product into the realm of awareness for many hackers who may otherwise not know you even exist. They can see your CVE history, and get a good feeling about your security posture. If they see a lot of fixes for "amature" mistakes, then your product might easily come under the scrutiny of people who know how to find the more obscure stuff that you may have otherwise gotten luck enough to avoid.



        Also, products that are unlikely to be patched even if you release a CVE can do more harm than good. Most IoT devices never get patched, so, CVEs just tell hackers which ones are easy prey.



        In contrast, if your product typically requires a manual update that is likely to happen if you release a CVE, then you should probably do it.






        share|improve this answer


























          6












          6








          6







          I think the most important question is if your product comes with an auto-updater. If it auto-updates by default, then a CVE can sometimes do more harm than good by putting your product into the realm of awareness for many hackers who may otherwise not know you even exist. They can see your CVE history, and get a good feeling about your security posture. If they see a lot of fixes for "amature" mistakes, then your product might easily come under the scrutiny of people who know how to find the more obscure stuff that you may have otherwise gotten luck enough to avoid.



          Also, products that are unlikely to be patched even if you release a CVE can do more harm than good. Most IoT devices never get patched, so, CVEs just tell hackers which ones are easy prey.



          In contrast, if your product typically requires a manual update that is likely to happen if you release a CVE, then you should probably do it.






          share|improve this answer













          I think the most important question is if your product comes with an auto-updater. If it auto-updates by default, then a CVE can sometimes do more harm than good by putting your product into the realm of awareness for many hackers who may otherwise not know you even exist. They can see your CVE history, and get a good feeling about your security posture. If they see a lot of fixes for "amature" mistakes, then your product might easily come under the scrutiny of people who know how to find the more obscure stuff that you may have otherwise gotten luck enough to avoid.



          Also, products that are unlikely to be patched even if you release a CVE can do more harm than good. Most IoT devices never get patched, so, CVEs just tell hackers which ones are easy prey.



          In contrast, if your product typically requires a manual update that is likely to happen if you release a CVE, then you should probably do it.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 14 at 20:04









          NosajimikiNosajimiki

          2988




          2988























              2














              If this is a really critical issue, then you might patch the issue and keep it secret for as long as possible.



              Then the customers have a longer time frame for applying software updates.



              Also make sure to use as much binary obfuscation as possible, in order to hinder "differential reverse engineering" after delivering the patch.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 8





                By keeping it secret, there is not one effect (the one you mention) but two effects: yes, customers have more time to upgrade because bad guys might not realize there is a vulnerability, but also, customers won't be aware there is an issue and might go "meh, we don't need these new features and didn't notice any bugs, no need to spend sysadmin hours to upgrade it". That said, you did get me thinking: it might be good to, instead, communicate it to customers privately before making it public (as is done with responsible disclosure).

                – Luc
                Mar 13 at 20:41






              • 1





                @Luc: I don't think that Mike is suggesting keeping the existence of a patch secret. It's the details of the issue that are kept secret. Customers should be motivated to install a patch listed as "fixed remote code execution vuln" based on the severity, without understanding the bug itself.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 18:43






              • 1





                @BenVoigt CVEs usually don't include enough detail to exploit an issue, only in some cases they're later updated to link to a page with more details. But indeed, Mike might have meant that, I don't know.

                – Luc
                Mar 14 at 19:27








              • 3





                @Luc: Just grabbing a random recent CVE, CVE-2018-7183. The title is "Buffer overflow in the decodearr function in ntpq in ntp 4.2.8p6 through 4.2.8p10 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging an ntpq query and sending a response with a crafted array." That is not precisely "enough detail to exploit an issue" but it certainly is enough to give attackers a huge headstart.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 20:07






              • 3





                @BenVoigt just a remark, if you look at open source CVEs there are by nature more complete and detailed. Commercial vendors might have a policy not to disclose details. Oracle for example is notoriously bad.

                – eckes
                Mar 15 at 11:40
















              2














              If this is a really critical issue, then you might patch the issue and keep it secret for as long as possible.



              Then the customers have a longer time frame for applying software updates.



              Also make sure to use as much binary obfuscation as possible, in order to hinder "differential reverse engineering" after delivering the patch.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 8





                By keeping it secret, there is not one effect (the one you mention) but two effects: yes, customers have more time to upgrade because bad guys might not realize there is a vulnerability, but also, customers won't be aware there is an issue and might go "meh, we don't need these new features and didn't notice any bugs, no need to spend sysadmin hours to upgrade it". That said, you did get me thinking: it might be good to, instead, communicate it to customers privately before making it public (as is done with responsible disclosure).

                – Luc
                Mar 13 at 20:41






              • 1





                @Luc: I don't think that Mike is suggesting keeping the existence of a patch secret. It's the details of the issue that are kept secret. Customers should be motivated to install a patch listed as "fixed remote code execution vuln" based on the severity, without understanding the bug itself.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 18:43






              • 1





                @BenVoigt CVEs usually don't include enough detail to exploit an issue, only in some cases they're later updated to link to a page with more details. But indeed, Mike might have meant that, I don't know.

                – Luc
                Mar 14 at 19:27








              • 3





                @Luc: Just grabbing a random recent CVE, CVE-2018-7183. The title is "Buffer overflow in the decodearr function in ntpq in ntp 4.2.8p6 through 4.2.8p10 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging an ntpq query and sending a response with a crafted array." That is not precisely "enough detail to exploit an issue" but it certainly is enough to give attackers a huge headstart.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 20:07






              • 3





                @BenVoigt just a remark, if you look at open source CVEs there are by nature more complete and detailed. Commercial vendors might have a policy not to disclose details. Oracle for example is notoriously bad.

                – eckes
                Mar 15 at 11:40














              2












              2








              2







              If this is a really critical issue, then you might patch the issue and keep it secret for as long as possible.



              Then the customers have a longer time frame for applying software updates.



              Also make sure to use as much binary obfuscation as possible, in order to hinder "differential reverse engineering" after delivering the patch.






              share|improve this answer













              If this is a really critical issue, then you might patch the issue and keep it secret for as long as possible.



              Then the customers have a longer time frame for applying software updates.



              Also make sure to use as much binary obfuscation as possible, in order to hinder "differential reverse engineering" after delivering the patch.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Mar 13 at 18:38









              Mike76Mike76

              17219




              17219








              • 8





                By keeping it secret, there is not one effect (the one you mention) but two effects: yes, customers have more time to upgrade because bad guys might not realize there is a vulnerability, but also, customers won't be aware there is an issue and might go "meh, we don't need these new features and didn't notice any bugs, no need to spend sysadmin hours to upgrade it". That said, you did get me thinking: it might be good to, instead, communicate it to customers privately before making it public (as is done with responsible disclosure).

                – Luc
                Mar 13 at 20:41






              • 1





                @Luc: I don't think that Mike is suggesting keeping the existence of a patch secret. It's the details of the issue that are kept secret. Customers should be motivated to install a patch listed as "fixed remote code execution vuln" based on the severity, without understanding the bug itself.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 18:43






              • 1





                @BenVoigt CVEs usually don't include enough detail to exploit an issue, only in some cases they're later updated to link to a page with more details. But indeed, Mike might have meant that, I don't know.

                – Luc
                Mar 14 at 19:27








              • 3





                @Luc: Just grabbing a random recent CVE, CVE-2018-7183. The title is "Buffer overflow in the decodearr function in ntpq in ntp 4.2.8p6 through 4.2.8p10 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging an ntpq query and sending a response with a crafted array." That is not precisely "enough detail to exploit an issue" but it certainly is enough to give attackers a huge headstart.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 20:07






              • 3





                @BenVoigt just a remark, if you look at open source CVEs there are by nature more complete and detailed. Commercial vendors might have a policy not to disclose details. Oracle for example is notoriously bad.

                – eckes
                Mar 15 at 11:40














              • 8





                By keeping it secret, there is not one effect (the one you mention) but two effects: yes, customers have more time to upgrade because bad guys might not realize there is a vulnerability, but also, customers won't be aware there is an issue and might go "meh, we don't need these new features and didn't notice any bugs, no need to spend sysadmin hours to upgrade it". That said, you did get me thinking: it might be good to, instead, communicate it to customers privately before making it public (as is done with responsible disclosure).

                – Luc
                Mar 13 at 20:41






              • 1





                @Luc: I don't think that Mike is suggesting keeping the existence of a patch secret. It's the details of the issue that are kept secret. Customers should be motivated to install a patch listed as "fixed remote code execution vuln" based on the severity, without understanding the bug itself.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 18:43






              • 1





                @BenVoigt CVEs usually don't include enough detail to exploit an issue, only in some cases they're later updated to link to a page with more details. But indeed, Mike might have meant that, I don't know.

                – Luc
                Mar 14 at 19:27








              • 3





                @Luc: Just grabbing a random recent CVE, CVE-2018-7183. The title is "Buffer overflow in the decodearr function in ntpq in ntp 4.2.8p6 through 4.2.8p10 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging an ntpq query and sending a response with a crafted array." That is not precisely "enough detail to exploit an issue" but it certainly is enough to give attackers a huge headstart.

                – Ben Voigt
                Mar 14 at 20:07






              • 3





                @BenVoigt just a remark, if you look at open source CVEs there are by nature more complete and detailed. Commercial vendors might have a policy not to disclose details. Oracle for example is notoriously bad.

                – eckes
                Mar 15 at 11:40








              8




              8





              By keeping it secret, there is not one effect (the one you mention) but two effects: yes, customers have more time to upgrade because bad guys might not realize there is a vulnerability, but also, customers won't be aware there is an issue and might go "meh, we don't need these new features and didn't notice any bugs, no need to spend sysadmin hours to upgrade it". That said, you did get me thinking: it might be good to, instead, communicate it to customers privately before making it public (as is done with responsible disclosure).

              – Luc
              Mar 13 at 20:41





              By keeping it secret, there is not one effect (the one you mention) but two effects: yes, customers have more time to upgrade because bad guys might not realize there is a vulnerability, but also, customers won't be aware there is an issue and might go "meh, we don't need these new features and didn't notice any bugs, no need to spend sysadmin hours to upgrade it". That said, you did get me thinking: it might be good to, instead, communicate it to customers privately before making it public (as is done with responsible disclosure).

              – Luc
              Mar 13 at 20:41




              1




              1





              @Luc: I don't think that Mike is suggesting keeping the existence of a patch secret. It's the details of the issue that are kept secret. Customers should be motivated to install a patch listed as "fixed remote code execution vuln" based on the severity, without understanding the bug itself.

              – Ben Voigt
              Mar 14 at 18:43





              @Luc: I don't think that Mike is suggesting keeping the existence of a patch secret. It's the details of the issue that are kept secret. Customers should be motivated to install a patch listed as "fixed remote code execution vuln" based on the severity, without understanding the bug itself.

              – Ben Voigt
              Mar 14 at 18:43




              1




              1





              @BenVoigt CVEs usually don't include enough detail to exploit an issue, only in some cases they're later updated to link to a page with more details. But indeed, Mike might have meant that, I don't know.

              – Luc
              Mar 14 at 19:27







              @BenVoigt CVEs usually don't include enough detail to exploit an issue, only in some cases they're later updated to link to a page with more details. But indeed, Mike might have meant that, I don't know.

              – Luc
              Mar 14 at 19:27






              3




              3





              @Luc: Just grabbing a random recent CVE, CVE-2018-7183. The title is "Buffer overflow in the decodearr function in ntpq in ntp 4.2.8p6 through 4.2.8p10 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging an ntpq query and sending a response with a crafted array." That is not precisely "enough detail to exploit an issue" but it certainly is enough to give attackers a huge headstart.

              – Ben Voigt
              Mar 14 at 20:07





              @Luc: Just grabbing a random recent CVE, CVE-2018-7183. The title is "Buffer overflow in the decodearr function in ntpq in ntp 4.2.8p6 through 4.2.8p10 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging an ntpq query and sending a response with a crafted array." That is not precisely "enough detail to exploit an issue" but it certainly is enough to give attackers a huge headstart.

              – Ben Voigt
              Mar 14 at 20:07




              3




              3





              @BenVoigt just a remark, if you look at open source CVEs there are by nature more complete and detailed. Commercial vendors might have a policy not to disclose details. Oracle for example is notoriously bad.

              – eckes
              Mar 15 at 11:40





              @BenVoigt just a remark, if you look at open source CVEs there are by nature more complete and detailed. Commercial vendors might have a policy not to disclose details. Oracle for example is notoriously bad.

              – eckes
              Mar 15 at 11:40











              1














              Few companies will apply patches immediately, most will have some quality control and evaluation before any update is put into their systems. The CVE definition allows them to know what vulnerabilities are in the current version of the software. Then can then evaluate that vulnerability and make an informed choice of when they will apply the update.






              share|improve this answer




























                1














                Few companies will apply patches immediately, most will have some quality control and evaluation before any update is put into their systems. The CVE definition allows them to know what vulnerabilities are in the current version of the software. Then can then evaluate that vulnerability and make an informed choice of when they will apply the update.






                share|improve this answer


























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  Few companies will apply patches immediately, most will have some quality control and evaluation before any update is put into their systems. The CVE definition allows them to know what vulnerabilities are in the current version of the software. Then can then evaluate that vulnerability and make an informed choice of when they will apply the update.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Few companies will apply patches immediately, most will have some quality control and evaluation before any update is put into their systems. The CVE definition allows them to know what vulnerabilities are in the current version of the software. Then can then evaluate that vulnerability and make an informed choice of when they will apply the update.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 15 at 16:03









                  RalphRalph

                  111




                  111






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f205271%2fshould-we-release-the-security-issues-we-found-in-our-product-as-cve-or-we-can-j%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

                      Masuk log Menu navigasi

                      อาณาจักร (ชีววิทยา) ดูเพิ่ม อ้างอิง รายการเลือกการนำทาง10.1086/39456810.5962/bhl.title.447410.1126/science.163.3863.150576276010.1007/BF01796092408502"Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms"10.1073/pnas.74.11.5088432104270744"Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya"1990PNAS...87.4576W10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576541592112744PubMedJump the queueexpand by handPubMedJump the queueexpand by handPubMedJump the queueexpand by hand"A revised six-kingdom system of life"10.1111/j.1469-185X.1998.tb00030.x9809012"Only six kingdoms of life"10.1098/rspb.2004.2705169172415306349"Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree"10.1098/rsbl.2009.0948288006020031978เพิ่มข้อมูล