mala

I feel the traditional "responsible disclosure" concept has been broken since its inception. you can argue that forcing everyone's hand by dropping (weaponized) bugs/exploits is reckless/harmful behavior or blablabla but I feel you have to keep in mind everyone's stakes/motivation in the game are different. one thing I guess we can agree on: people sit on bugs/exploits all the time. sometimes because ZDI promises a big bag of money at the end of the rainbow that magically evaporates and sometimes because they don't want to disclose these things and use them tactfully for their own advantage/goals. I've always felt forcing this acceleration will (hopefully) get the software landscape in better shape, faster. albeit in a messy way. the noise it creates however could be a good signal for people to get an idea of the overall security posture of a piece of software, as well as get a good idea of how a vendor handles disclosures that don't follow their made up fairytale non-enforceable policies. (that typically don't come with any kind of silver lining) back then, you could be damn sure that another horde of teenagers grep'd the same src tree for memcpy and was probably also sitting on an exploit. today the same applies, anyone can out-slop you producing the next linux LPE after brad tweets out a commit ID remember: as a researcher you don't own the vendor anything. you don't own the public anything either. if you did this work for free its yours to publish in whatever way suits your needs, agenda or overall quirkiness. :)