Re: Call for Community Feedback: Guidance on Reporting Protocol Vulnerabilities

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C123A0D32; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UVSzqMOtqT4R; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 294443A0D3F; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09RDtocs006848; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:59:38 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=TGZ7kbzkP4M/X3sFjFXusZy/77FmKmMea6NbvqiYTpE=; b=XV+azTAX25AVdTyeqw7PGZImykY0603NUcRpuuoCnX/lRKVrq6OiV7zwBQkKsPnnxAD8 XYIr5tUeBwxQx661ExMmgpbMs5KrIw4M+eloFPfwGqZSeuDCY627eRZCgb/91SveK6eg 5QQC7BBW0rnz/7uSkYIa8JO8kxGvAfs3GxVQ7XJ/IkosN8Fv4oyFdvhxxcsKd0VwVEt5 aiAV/7gfvHdy/+6n5eytZjnto9BGpNfbomOhU2vaG8XsO1Vre08v9fblwoUXA5ePY91Q KSiz7LG+c5r9zHSWfgMPfK1ierfVC/rntbdE1IW7ZjIJR18ppbnUpTXHJXxF2tNolhon XA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 (a72-247-45-31.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.31] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 34ccevb8rv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:59:38 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09RDpKst015767; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:59:37 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com with ESMTP id 34cfkxw84k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:59:37 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:59:35 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.007; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:59:35 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
CC: The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Call for Community Feedback: Guidance on Reporting Protocol Vulnerabilities
Thread-Topic: Call for Community Feedback: Guidance on Reporting Protocol Vulnerabilities
Thread-Index: Adapa+D5Cfcs8r0xT9Wg091feiESVgCMHiYAABWiuxAAIoqtAP//2K+A
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:59:35 +0000
Message-ID: <11D079DF-614B-44CD-93F4-F53E353E31C7@akamai.com>
References: <5081794697df44d8bd76b675cf08dc23@cert.org> <09B0A1A1-6534-4A44-A162-9962FFF8D8B8@cisco.com> <362d68dd6117452f925322f8180de423@cert.org> <B864FFAE-3E3E-4CEF-B832-4552C8BAE70B@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B864FFAE-3E3E-4CEF-B832-4552C8BAE70B@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.42.20101102
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_11D079DF614B44CD93F4F53E353E31C7akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-10-27_08:2020-10-26, 2020-10-27 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=929 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010270087
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-10-27_08:2020-10-26, 2020-10-27 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=855 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010270088
X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 72.247.45.31) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/janCLcsN5Q3AmBBTENhfTx9f_ZY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:59:52 -0000

Having worked on OpenSSL for many years, the absolute worst thing you can do is not respond to reported vulnerabilities.  Even if it’s just an auto-reply that says “thanks we got it.”

I also think it would be worth pointing out more strongly that we are interested in *protocol* errors, not *implementation* errors, and making that distinction clear.