• Atemu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

    • Lightdm@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I am not sure as well, but maybe they meant “maybe an early and public disclosure increases the urgency of the fix for the developers”?

      • Devorlon@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        There have been cases [1] where vulnerabilities in software have been found, and the researcher that found it will contact the relevant party and nothing comes of it.

        What they’re suggesting is that the researcher who discovered this might have already disclosed this in private, but felt that it wasn’t being patched fast enough, so they went public.

        • IAm_A_Complete_Idiot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          The solution here generally afaik is to give a specific deadline before you go public. It forces the other party to either patch it, or see the problem happen when they go live. 90 days is the standard timeframe for that since it’s enough time to patch and rollout, but still puts pressure on making it happen.