Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is a multi-part question....

In regards to the ASP.NET Padding Oracle, (demo link)was that security exploit dealt with in an ethical manner? What could have been done differently or better?

What are the incentives to handle an exploit in the most ethical manner?

What can the InfoSec industry do to incentivise (financial or otherwise) the proper handling of security issues?

share|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Quite similar question is already here: How to disclose a security vulnerability in an ethical fashion?.

What about current topic and the way how vulnerability was disclosed - not bad, but still, IT security community is in the search of more ethical ways of vulnerability disclosure. Well, researchers could inform (or maybe they have done that, don't know) vendor, wait some days, months, maybe years when the bug is patched. At that time vulnerability could be exploited. Moreover, who said that this vulnerability was not previously exploited by black-hats? When the bug is publicly known, it has no more value on criminal market, it is easier to defend, easier to stop script-kiddies attacks, comparing to skilled black-hats. There are endless topics about FD and RD, with numerous pros and cons.

Taking into account known manner of known vendors response, no surprise that researchers act like that. Remember "No more free bugs" movement.

share|improve this answer

Padding oracles have been known about for years. This is a best-effort full-disclosure situation since so many apps are affected. MyFaces was spoken to a year ago, but now ASP.NET apps (e.g. DotNetNuke) are under the gun.

share|improve this answer

I think it's just another iteration of full disclosure vs responsible disclosure debate that's going on within the IT security industry for years now. It's just a matter of personal opinion, each side has it's own strong points.

Often cited pros and cons of each approach are:

Full disclosure:


  • Black hats might already know that anyway (sometimes there's even a proof)
  • Users get the patch faster due to vendor pressure


  • 0-days put all users in danger until patch is released

  • It might be done for fame only

Responsible disclosure:


  • Vendors like it, they can plan & allocate their resources and test the patches

  • No users are at risk (if black hats don't find out)

  • Hey, responsible is such a positive word ;)


  • Vendors tend to ignore the reports or delay the patches

  • The vulnerability is out there, unpatched

  • No information for users on how to mitigate the risk

Getting back to the 'was ASP.NET padding oracle disclosure ethical'. In my opinion, it's ethically right to disclose the issue anyhow researcher decided, be it a 0-day with the exploit, a private e-mail to vendor or a public disclosure. Their decisions are usually well thought-out even if you don't agree with them.

There are only two wrong approaches: forget about the discovered issue (if it seems serious) or sell it at the black market. Apart from that, it's researcher's sole privilege to decide.

share|improve this answer

I'm not sure that "ethical" is really involved when dealing with exposing exploits. Exploits are totally un-ethical and totally anti-social, so exposing them at any cost seems acceptable to me. Even a totally botched exposure is less un-ethical and less anti-social than the exploit is.

To me it's kind of like asking, "Is there a nice way to kill someone who's trying to kill me?"

share|improve this answer
Ignoring for a moment whether I agree with you or not, "ethical" of course applies - you're just saying "Yes, it was ethical". – AviD Nov 21 '10 at 10:48
Yes, "It was ethical." – Greg Nov 21 '10 at 18:25

I'm not deeply familiar with the specifics of the disclosure, but as far as I know it was handled in a reasonable way. I'm not aware of any ethical issues associated with the disclosure.

For example, I think it was fully ethical to disclose the existence and nature of the problem. As @atdre mentions, padding oracle attacks have been known about for years, so blackhats may already have known about this attack, for all we know. Given the severity of the problem and the broad scale of the problem, it was critical to get the word out quickly. So I'm not aware of anything that the researchers did wrong.

If you think there's something in particular about how they handled disclosure that raised ethical questions in your mind, I encourage you to elaborate about what that was.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.