Sunday, May 22, 2011

VUPEN vs Google and the consequences for IT Security

I've been largely pre-occupied with other work as of late (read: university assignments), but not wanting to discuss AusCERT I did however want to touch on the VUPEN vs Google debate.

For anyone that had missed this, simply put, a French security research firm claimed (displaying video footage) that they had cracked the Google Chrome sandbox, allowing arbitrary code execution. What makes this news worthy however is their refusal to disclose the details to the vendor and only provided the details to their clients (mostly French government, law enforcement, military types) who paid their subscription. For what purpose, we can only guess.

For the overview, see below:

Now, I'm not getting into a moral debate surrounding disclosure, but what I wanted to highlight firms selling 0day vulnerabilities is not new. Endgame Systems was dragged into the limelight when HBGary's treasure trove of emails was leaked to the public when it was revealed a multi million dollar contract for selling zero day exploits. This is perhaps the first instance of where a previously known but underground industry practise was exposed very, very publicly. Based on the content and context of these leaked emails, we can only presume they were developed for offensive (largely illegal) purposes.

What I found largely interesting is the lack of political fallout for Endgame Systems. On the contrary, apart from a handful of negative news, most of the rage was directed at HBGary. But the point I'm trying to make is that Endgame Systems, very carefully and deliberately - did not want to draw any attention for these activities. Yet, VUPEN is perhaps the first firm we've seen who has taken an active stance to promote their technical capability in the production of 0days. And to repeat myself, it is ironic that they are copping all the rage from the public for their disclosure while Endgame Systems does not.

This raises two interesting points of concern -
One, the relative hypocrisy of an industry that is willing to slam one company for openly acknowledging their capability and is punished yet another seeks to hide it and goes relatively unscathed;
Two, and perhaps more importantly, could this represent a new era whereby exploits will begun to be sold openly?

On the first point, I have my suspicions but it seems odd that it is perceived as socially acceptable for one country to have this capability and yet, not for another. It reminds me of the nuclear arms proliferation debate really.

On the second point, the publicity stunt that VUPEN pulled presents something we've not seen before (at least, not that I can recall - please correct me if anyone can think of a more public example).

As the legalities of security research in which vulnerabilities and exploits (sorry, "Proof of Concepts" :P) are created vary from country to country. This means that their "legitimacy" (perceived vs real) could have a very profound and transformative effect on the IT security landscape.

Will this force IPS vendors into bidding wars for 0days to update their signatures? Will this force vendors to create pay money as a form of "hush money"? Will governments seek to impose a tax on software developers who create faulty software or perhaps a more likely outcome - rushed legislation to ban vulnerability research and exploit development (further driving up the black market value and driving the industry further into the dark).

All food for thought but I would not be suprised if this activity becomes increasingly commonplace.

So yeah, watch this space.

- J.

2 comments:

nothingphishy said...

Loooong, but liked it!
Thanks for sharing these good thoughts.

Anonymous said...

this should be barely illegal to sold anything which is unknown, or then we are not living in democracy
this guy from vupen is totally mad (perhaps him personnal history, yeah he should go to a medic specialist), he exploits something that will throw a lot of bad luck on hackers, which he's of course not