What Responsibility do Anti-Spyware Researchers Have?

The New Acunetix V12 Engine


Ethical debates are always interesting, and people have gotten in trouble lately for reverse engineering and various other branches of research.

This is a fairly old topic, but as I’m clearing out some old drafts, I still find it an interesting one.

There’s been an ongoing debate in security circles concerning how security researchers should disclose vulnerabilities for a long time, Darknet is of course in the Full Disclosure school of thinking. The common viewpoint is that the researchers should disclose the vulnerabilities to the company, giving them some time to fix the problem.

Typically, however, if nothing is done to fix the vulnerability, then researchers eventually will disclose it publicly. That’s where a lot of the conflict occurs, and there are even some questionable laws that might get you in trouble for publicly discussing a vulnerability. However, does this apply to spyware research as well?

The main question is, should the vulnerabilities ever be posted publically? I of course say yes, as if I’m using that software, I have the right to know there’s something wrong with it and take remedial measures, even if there’s no patch (that’s the beauty of open source, you can patch it yourself!).

There was a lot of conversation during the 180solution period about responsible disclosure and disclosing the affiliates used to install spyware, someone 180 always manage to spin it into a self-serving press release about how they triumphed over evil.

Ah ethics, always an interesting topic.

The whole thing became a virtual war between a high profile security researcher and the spammy 180solution folks.

The sniping between a controversial adware company and a prominent anti-spyware researcher continued Thursday as 180solutions defended its practices and called critic Ben Edelman “irresponsible.”

Earlier this week, Bellevue, Wash.-based 180 solutions, which distributes software that delivers ads to users’ computers, blasted Edelman, a Harvard researcher, for improperly disclosing a hack into the company’s installation software. Last week, Edelman had posted an analysis of an illegal download of 180’s Zango software by an affiliate Web site of 180’s advertising network.

You can read more here.

Posted in: Legal Issues, Malware

, , , , , , ,


Latest Posts:


Malcom - Malware Communication Analyzer Malcom – Malware Communication Analyzer
Malcom is a Malware Communication Analyzer designed to analyze a system's network communication using graphical representations of network traffic.
WepAttack - WLAN 802.11 WEP Key Hacking Tool WepAttack – WLAN 802.11 WEP Key Hacking Tool
WepAttack is a WLAN open source Linux WEP key hacking tool for breaking 802.11 WEP keys using a wordlist based dictionary attack.
Eraser - Windows Secure Erase Hard Drive Wiper Eraser – Windows Secure Erase Hard Drive Wiper
Eraser is a hard drive wiper for Windows which allows you to run a secure erase and completely remove sensitive data from your hard drive by overwriting it several times with carefully selected patterns.
Insecure software versions are a problem Web Security Stats Show XSS & Outdated Software Are Major Problems
Netsparker just published some anonymized Web Security Stats about the security vulnerabilities their online solution identified on their users’ web applications and web services during the last 3 years.
CTFR - Abuse Certificate Transparency Logs For HTTPS Subdomains CTFR – Abuse Certificate Transparency Logs For HTTPS Subdomains
CTFR is a Python-based tool to Abuse Certificate Transparency Logs to get subdomains from a HTTPS website in a few seconds.
testssl.sh - Test SSL Security Including Ciphers, Protocols & Detect Flaws testssl.sh – Test SSL Security Including Ciphers, Protocols & Detect Flaws
testssl.sh is a free command line tool to test SSL security, it checks a server's service on any port for the support of TLS/SSL ciphers, protocols as well as recent cryptographic flaws and more.


Comments are closed.