|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > full-disclosure-uk archives|
> Testing takes time. That's why both Microsoft and Mozilla test.
Testing almost never legitimately takes months or years, unless the process is severely broken; contrary to the popular claims, personally, I have serious doubts that QA is a major bottleneck when it comes to security response - certainly not as often as portrayed.
The generalization made earlier in this thread - that closed source projects are always bad when it comes to security response, while the open source community is inherently responsive - does not even deserve a proper rebuttal. I am cc:ed on quite a few open security bugs in major open source software - and when a problem is kept under wraps, it is not unheard of to wait 6-12 months for a fix.
Both in the open source and in the closed source world, the real story is almost always that the security issues you report need to be prioritized against hundreds of other internally discovered security problems; and thousands of high-priority but non-security bugs that affect market adoption or annoy key customers. On top of this, many security changes may require significant rewrites that the vendor is hesitant to implement because of having no resources or no long-term plan to do so.
In other words, in many cases, most of the waiting period is a prolonged no-op that may serves no legitimate function, and may be putting users at an unreasonable risk.
Even without assuming malice on the side of the vendor, this demonstrates an inherent weakness of the "responsible disclosure" process (understood as accepting arbitrary vendor-provided disclosure timelines): while some vendors are quite willing to give security issues top priority, and will actually work to get things done - others may exploit the rhetoric to mask staffing problems or the inability to drive engineering decisions effectively.