cr3ghost

We know what probably happened. From what we see publicly, NightmareEclipse doesn't communicate well, is emotionally immature, and appears to want to extort Microsoft. Almost certainly, this played a part in the conflict between them and Microsoft -- it's probably as much NightmareEclipse's fault as Microsoft's. With that said, everything Florian says is correct. It doesn't excuse Microsoft's failures. They are supposed to be the responsible one, When there is miscommunication or dispute, it's always allowable to drop 0day, regardless whose fault it is. It's Microsoft's job to avoid that, even when they really aren't at fault for the miscommunication. But Microsoft has convinced themselves of the opposite, that "responsible" disclosure means only the responsibilities of the vuln finder. Vuln finders have no responsibility. Dropping 0day is responsible. Responsible companies don't have so many bugs. We let industry subvert the disclosure process. Instead of working to secure their code, vendors have tricked people into believing in the myth of "responsible disclosure", that vendors should be given time to fix and patch their bugs so they are never to blame for the bugs to begin with. That's why you have customers still buying Fortinet appliances even though their bugs continue to be major sources of customers getting hacked. Customers shrug their shoulders: as long as Fortinet has a vulnerability disclosure program and releases patches, they aren't responsible for when hackers keep breaking into their boxes. This is garbage. Vendors are still responsible for preventing bugs in the first place, a responsibility that doesn't go away just because they patch. Regardless of what happened, Microsoft's threats are a gross violation of ethics in the industry.

Over the past several days, we have been listening to the conversation around coordinated disclosure and the relationship between security researchers and vendors. We recognize that this relationship is both critical and, at times, fragile. We deeply value the security community, and will continue to take your feedback seriously. To be clear about our approach to legal matters, we have no intention to pursue action against individuals conducting or publishing their security research. When an individual breaks the law and engages in malicious activity causing real harm to our customers, we will work with law enforcement as appropriate. We recognize the work that goes into researching and submitting a vulnerability. We are committed to approaching every interaction with transparency, clear communication, and professionalism. We continue to believe strongly in Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure as the foundation for protecting customers and improving our products. Each year we process a high volume of vulnerability reports. That volume continues to grow and will continue with the rise of AI-enabled research. We acknowledge that some interactions have fallen short and are working to learn from them. Many of us have experience on both sides of this work, as researchers reporting vulnerabilities and as responders triaging and assessing them. That perspective informs how we approach this feedback and the importance we place on getting it right, particularly as the volume and complexity of research continues to grow. The security community plays a vital role in helping us protect customers. We are committed to maintaining a constructive and respectful relationship and growing together. We know that, given the nature of this work, there will at times be misunderstandings. We remain committed to engaging in good faith and to providing a respectful and professional experience for all researchers, regardless of past interactions.

Over the past several days, we have been listening to the conversation around coordinated disclosure and the relationship between security researchers and vendors. We recognize that this relationship is both critical and, at times, fragile. We deeply value the security community, and will continue to take your feedback seriously. To be clear about our approach to legal matters, we have no intention to pursue action against individuals conducting or publishing their security research. When an individual breaks the law and engages in malicious activity causing real harm to our customers, we will work with law enforcement as appropriate. We recognize the work that goes into researching and submitting a vulnerability. We are committed to approaching every interaction with transparency, clear communication, and professionalism. We continue to believe strongly in Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure as the foundation for protecting customers and improving our products. Each year we process a high volume of vulnerability reports. That volume continues to grow and will continue with the rise of AI-enabled research. We acknowledge that some interactions have fallen short and are working to learn from them. Many of us have experience on both sides of this work, as researchers reporting vulnerabilities and as responders triaging and assessing them. That perspective informs how we approach this feedback and the importance we place on getting it right, particularly as the volume and complexity of research continues to grow. The security community plays a vital role in helping us protect customers. We are committed to maintaining a constructive and respectful relationship and growing together. We know that, given the nature of this work, there will at times be misunderstandings. We remain committed to engaging in good faith and to providing a respectful and professional experience for all researchers, regardless of past interactions.

Previous generations of software protection (DRM perspective) have always relied on code complexity (for RE), compute limitations, and human limitations as the guarantees that kept hacking timelines reasonably long. That's changed now. Beyond the acceleration in vulnerability research and malware analysis, the same new reality applies to software protection, and security by obscurity, or assuming the attacker is limited in compute and motivation, no longer works.