While I support full disclosure, I also advocate responsible disclosure. The public _has_ a right to know, but in this case, they can play no significant part in remedy or mitigation unless they are employees of the vendor or the customer. I believe the best course of action for a SCADA vulnerability would be to let the vendor know first, let them know you intend to disclose publicly after a reasonable time, then release to the potential customers in a responsible time thereafter, and finally the public (admittedly could be very arbitrary per researcher). This way you can hopefully get the fix started and let the security-conscious vendor notify customers how to defend in the interim for defense purposes _before_ you let a potential attacker in on the problem. Just my $0.02...

Sent from my mobile launching platform...

On Mar 22, 2011, at 16:24, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf (at) coredump (dot) cx [email concealed]> wrote:

>> Analogy: Car owner has his car speed up ending up in almost near
>> catastrophe. Car owner goes to media outlets condemning the
>> manufacturer: "How could you be so reckless! Thousand of lives..."
>> Reality: Car manufacturer was never made aware of the issue. How do you
>> propose a manufacturer fix an issue?
>
> Yes, the discussion definitely needed a car analogy...
>
> The author decided to follow a particular route, probably not out of
> malice, but because he believes that his responsibilities to inform
> the public outweigh the responsibility to assist the vendor. You
> wouldn't do the same, but you haven't discovered these bugs.
>
> Unless your view is that you would rather not know about about
> security problems at all, than see a disclosure mode you do not agree
> with, I do not think it's fair to lash out against the reporter; and
> it's not particularly fitting to do so on BUGTRAQ.
>
> /mz

[ reply ]