undefined

points

[-]

It is absolutely not true that viable commercial vulnerability labs need to "accept the norms around responsible disclosure". There are no such norms. "Responsible disclosure" is an Orwellian term cooked up between @Stake and Microsoft and other large vendors to coerce researchers into synchronizing with vendor release schedules. It was fantastically successful at that, and it's worth pushing back on at every opportunity.

Tavis Ormandy dropped Zenbleed right onto Twitter. He's doing fine. You can blacklist him if you want; I imagine he's not going to notice.

by SCHiM17 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Microsoft's policy is: "if you contact us with a vulnerability, you automatically agree to the terms of our responsible disclosure policy", which includes waiting 30 days after patch was created, and says nothing about how long that process takes.

There is actually no way to give them a friendly heads up, and then do your own thing. The only way not to be bound is by not sending them any notification at all...

by robocat4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> terms of our responsible disclosure policy

I couldn't find a public copy of that.

The best starting point I found for reporting vulnerabilities was: https://github.com/microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/security...

You can email without agreeing to anything. But for a serious issue Microsoft would obviously try and track down who you are and what jurisdiction you are in.

by SCHiM4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/bounty-guidelines

> MICROSOFT BOUNTY TERMS & CONDITIONS

> Last updated: July 23, 2025

> The Microsoft Bug Bounty Programs Terms and Conditions ("Terms") cover your participation in the Microsoft Bug Bounty Program (the "Program"). These Terms are between you and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft," "us" or "we"). By submitting any vulnerabilities to Microsoft or otherwise participating in the Program in any manner, you accept these Terms.

Who knows if its enforceable.

by leni5361 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This seems to be sloppy wording, with the intent of "we only offer the bounty under these terms". Maybe my interpretation is too charitable.

by leni53617 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I wonder if "if you contact us... you automatically agree" stands in court. That's just ridiculous.

by tptacek17 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Reader, it does not.

by prmoustache15 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Since no contract is signed, this is just pure fantasy from your part.

by _yttw17 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You're right, they don't need to. They have an alternative, to accept what people say or think about them in response. That's what I said.

by expedition3213 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

So how do we feel about Linux distributors who have their heads up their asses and sat on their hands for 30 days?

by selectively18 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Those norms do not exist. Those are people asking companies to do stuff to benefit the person complaining for free, and many companies will not do that.

by _yttw18 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It seems to me you're unaware of them, but there are strong norms around disclosure. They've been discussed for decades. It is the expectation that vendors would be notified in a scenario like this.

by selectively18 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

No, there are users who want those to be norms. Qualified researchers happily sell substantive vulns to people who pay (Governments/Cellebrite and companies like that) enough to quell any complaint.

by _yttw17 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Which is again, irrelevant to the question of how disclosure works and what expectations there are around it because that is not disclosure and is not what was being discussed.