Not having a bug bounty or dedicated email address does not make it OK to go public immediately
It should always be assumed that someone else (if not several someone elses) have already discovered the same flaw and are currently taking advantage of it while users remain totally unaware of their actual risk. By going public immediately, you give as many of those users as possible a chance to protect themselves.
Waiting to disclose something harmful when the users in danger could otherwise take steps to make themselves safe would be like not warning people entering a building not to go in because of a gas leak until after you've contacted the building owner and the fire department has shown up.
That's not what they said though. They said "please consider notifying the maintainer/vendor before publishing your findings, even if you intend to publish right away" (emphasis mine)
The priority should be on protecting users, and not helping the company responsible for the vulnerability save face, or give them extra time to spin up their PR team, or get a head start on a patch.
When the risk to users is low, or when there's really nothing users can do to protect themselves anyway I'd agree with you. In a case like this where the risk to users can be extremely high, and the moment they are made aware of the problem there are steps the user can take to eliminate that risk, the safety of those users should outweigh inconvenience to the people responsible for the vulnerability
Mullvad fucked up. They should been as inconvenienced as thru possibly could be too fix the problem promptly! The issue is irresponsible disclosure hurts more users than it helps.
It's not as if the odds of new would-be exploiters seeing it are any better. It helps that the people who are at the most risk tend to have their ear to the ground already because they know what's at stake.
When the risks are this high you have to assume that it's already being actively exploited. That means that already there are more attackers who know about the vulnerability than there are users who know about the mitigation.
All you can do at that point is let as many users as possible know how to protect themselves while Mullvad figures out how to fix the issue on their end, writes and puts out the update, and the remaining users get around to updating their systems. You can't save everyone, but hopefully you at least gave some people the chance to save themselves.
The flipside of course is ... does your disclosure increase the risk?
> aiting to disclose something harmful when the users in danger could otherwise take steps to make themselves safe would be like not warning people entering a building not to go in because of a gas leak until after you've contacted the building owner and the fire department has shown up
I don't think it's like this at all. The risk of a gas leak is not increased by telling people about it and can't be prevented after its occurred. To stretch your analogy, I'd say its more like you've found the gas leak and instead of turning off the gas supply are instead running around outside the building shouting about how there's a gas leak.
When you've got that much on the line you have to assume that the risk is already present for all users. It's true that there's always a chance that some users won't find your disclosure in time and additional would-be attackers who weren't aware of it already will start taking advantage of the flaw, but the alternative is that no users are safe.
> The risk of a gas leak is not increased by telling people about it and can't be prevented after its occurred.
It's true that warning people not to enter wouldn't make the gas more dangerous, but it limits the death count of the impending explosion. It keeps at least some people from entering the building and walking into a death trap.
There's no way to shut off the gas supply when you can't control what's already running on user's devices and more users are downloading and installing the buggy code all the time. It's really not a perfect analogy. The point is that immediate action will save some people, while waiting around means that nobody has a chance of being saved.
If so, I guess we just have different opinions on the ethics involved here.
But when it comes to money making corporations then personally I dont agree that revealing flaws in their product comes into ethics at all.
A companies paid product is flawed, their own paid engineers didnt figure that out, why should I do it for free becasue 'ethics'?
This is the entire reason bug bounty programs exist in the first place.
For me, it’s more subtle than that.
Everybody (“almost all software”) has exploitable bugs. Are you a fool for not finding the ones in yours? Maybe. Sometimes.
There is a huge difference between Project Zero finding a trivial vulnerability almost identical to one reported months earlier (close to negligence) and Mullvad having the CEO personally posting a response here in a very calm tone.
If I have a company which sells a paid product, and my paid engineers do not find bugs then I absolutely do not expect the public to willfully and freely make my product better for me. This is why I would have a bug bounty program as an incentive for the public to help me makle my product better and more secure, like any other company serious about finding security bugs.
If I didnt have a bug bounty program and found out that some black hats were selling backdoors to my system online, I would consider that fully my fault for not incentivizing those hackers against doing so.
why are companies so entitled to get free security research/audits?