Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 25, 2023 at 14:44 comment added Gh0stFish @dudekowsky protecting the vendors reputation (and share price) is not one of the goals of responsible disclosure. The full and responsible disclosure movements largely came about because of companies who were more concerned about trying to protect their reputation than they were about securing their products.
Apr 24, 2023 at 22:43 comment added Ben Voigt @dudekowsky: FTFY -- "possibly affects the vendors reputation in a negative-but-completely-deserved way"
Apr 24, 2023 at 19:51 vote accept dudekowsky
Apr 24, 2023 at 10:30 comment added Steffen Ullrich @dudekowsky: Always assume that other might find the same vulnerability (and maybe have already). So it is always necessary to inform the customers with enough details, so that they can mitigate the risk. Vendor reputation should be irrelevant here.
Apr 24, 2023 at 8:20 comment added dudekowsky Thanks for your answer! This covers the customer side very well and I agree with everything you wrote. Let's assume the vulnerability can only be fixed by replacing the hardware (so its not a firmware issue). Would publicly disclosing such a vulnerability harm the vendor more comparted to a pure SW vulnerability? A SW vulnerability could be easily fixed in field, the hw vulnerability needs a replacement which means much higher costs and therefore possibly affects the vendors reputiation in a negative way. Should such a vulnerability therefore disclosed to the vendor only and not publicly?
Apr 23, 2023 at 10:29 history edited Steffen Ullrich CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1 character in body
Apr 23, 2023 at 8:52 history edited Steffen Ullrich CC BY-SA 4.0
added 37 characters in body
Apr 23, 2023 at 8:46 history answered Steffen Ullrich CC BY-SA 4.0