进一步了解协调漏洞披露政策文件

T. Walshe, Andrew C. Simpson
{"title":"进一步了解协调漏洞披露政策文件","authors":"T. Walshe, Andrew C. Simpson","doi":"10.1145/3586180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bug bounty programmes and vulnerability disclosure programmes, collectively referred to as Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) programmes, open up an organisation’s assets to the inquisitive gaze of (often eager) white-hat hackers. Motivated by the question What information do organisations convey to hackers through public CVD policy documents?, we aim to better understand the information available to hackers wishing to participate in the search for vulnerabilities. As such, in this article we consider three key issues. First, to address the differences in the legal language communicated to hackers, it is necessary to understand the formal constraints by which hackers must abide. Second, it is beneficial to understand the variation that exists in the informal constraints that are communicated to hackers through a variety of institutional elements. Third, for organisations wishing to better understand the commonplace elements that form current policy documents, we offer broad analysis of the components frequently included therein and identify gaps in programme policies. We report the results of a quantitative study, leveraging deep learning based natural language processing models, providing insights into the policy documents that accompany the CVD programmes of thousands of organisations, covering both stand-alone programmes and those hosted on 13 bug bounty programmes. We found that organisations often inadequately convey the formal constraints that are applicable to hackers, requiring hackers to have a deep understanding of the laws that underpin safe and legal security research. Furthermore, a lack of standardisation across similar policy components is prevalent, and may lead to a decreased understanding of the informal constraints placed upon hackers when searching for and disclosing vulnerabilities. Analysis of the institutional elements included in the policy documents of organisations reveals insufficient inclusion of many key components. Namely, legal information and information pertaining to restrictions on the backgrounds of hackers is found to be absent in a majority of policies analysed. Finally, to assist ongoing research, we provide novel annotated policy datasets that include human-labelled annotations at both the sentence and paragraph level, covering a broad range of CVD programme backgrounds.","PeriodicalId":202552,"journal":{"name":"Digital Threats: Research and Practice","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a Greater Understanding of Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Policy Documents\",\"authors\":\"T. Walshe, Andrew C. Simpson\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3586180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Bug bounty programmes and vulnerability disclosure programmes, collectively referred to as Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) programmes, open up an organisation’s assets to the inquisitive gaze of (often eager) white-hat hackers. Motivated by the question What information do organisations convey to hackers through public CVD policy documents?, we aim to better understand the information available to hackers wishing to participate in the search for vulnerabilities. As such, in this article we consider three key issues. First, to address the differences in the legal language communicated to hackers, it is necessary to understand the formal constraints by which hackers must abide. Second, it is beneficial to understand the variation that exists in the informal constraints that are communicated to hackers through a variety of institutional elements. Third, for organisations wishing to better understand the commonplace elements that form current policy documents, we offer broad analysis of the components frequently included therein and identify gaps in programme policies. We report the results of a quantitative study, leveraging deep learning based natural language processing models, providing insights into the policy documents that accompany the CVD programmes of thousands of organisations, covering both stand-alone programmes and those hosted on 13 bug bounty programmes. We found that organisations often inadequately convey the formal constraints that are applicable to hackers, requiring hackers to have a deep understanding of the laws that underpin safe and legal security research. Furthermore, a lack of standardisation across similar policy components is prevalent, and may lead to a decreased understanding of the informal constraints placed upon hackers when searching for and disclosing vulnerabilities. Analysis of the institutional elements included in the policy documents of organisations reveals insufficient inclusion of many key components. Namely, legal information and information pertaining to restrictions on the backgrounds of hackers is found to be absent in a majority of policies analysed. Finally, to assist ongoing research, we provide novel annotated policy datasets that include human-labelled annotations at both the sentence and paragraph level, covering a broad range of CVD programme backgrounds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202552,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digital Threats: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digital Threats: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3586180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digital Threats: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3586180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

漏洞赏金计划和漏洞披露计划,统称为协调漏洞披露(CVD)计划,将组织的资产开放给(通常是渴望的)白帽黑客的好奇目光。组织通过公开的CVD政策文件向黑客传递了哪些信息?,我们的目标是更好地了解希望参与搜索漏洞的黑客可以获得的信息。因此,在本文中,我们考虑三个关键问题。首先,为了解决与黑客沟通的法律语言的差异,有必要了解黑客必须遵守的正式约束。其次,了解通过各种制度因素传达给黑客的非正式约束中存在的变化是有益的。第三,对于希望更好地理解构成当前政策文件的常见元素的组织,我们提供了对其中经常包含的组成部分的广泛分析,并确定项目政策中的差距。我们报告了一项定量研究的结果,利用基于深度学习的自然语言处理模型,提供了对数千个组织的CVD计划的政策文件的见解,涵盖了独立计划和13个漏洞赏金计划。我们发现,组织往往不能充分传达适用于黑客的正式约束,要求黑客对支持安全和法律安全研究的法律有深刻的理解。此外,在类似的策略组件之间普遍缺乏标准化,这可能导致在搜索和披露漏洞时对黑客施加的非正式约束的理解减少。对组织政策文件中包含的制度要素的分析显示,许多关键要素未被充分纳入。也就是说,在分析的大多数政策中,法律信息和有关黑客背景限制的信息是缺失的。最后,为了协助正在进行的研究,我们提供了新颖的注释政策数据集,其中包括句子和段落级别的人工标记注释,涵盖了广泛的CVD计划背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards a Greater Understanding of Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Policy Documents
Bug bounty programmes and vulnerability disclosure programmes, collectively referred to as Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) programmes, open up an organisation’s assets to the inquisitive gaze of (often eager) white-hat hackers. Motivated by the question What information do organisations convey to hackers through public CVD policy documents?, we aim to better understand the information available to hackers wishing to participate in the search for vulnerabilities. As such, in this article we consider three key issues. First, to address the differences in the legal language communicated to hackers, it is necessary to understand the formal constraints by which hackers must abide. Second, it is beneficial to understand the variation that exists in the informal constraints that are communicated to hackers through a variety of institutional elements. Third, for organisations wishing to better understand the commonplace elements that form current policy documents, we offer broad analysis of the components frequently included therein and identify gaps in programme policies. We report the results of a quantitative study, leveraging deep learning based natural language processing models, providing insights into the policy documents that accompany the CVD programmes of thousands of organisations, covering both stand-alone programmes and those hosted on 13 bug bounty programmes. We found that organisations often inadequately convey the formal constraints that are applicable to hackers, requiring hackers to have a deep understanding of the laws that underpin safe and legal security research. Furthermore, a lack of standardisation across similar policy components is prevalent, and may lead to a decreased understanding of the informal constraints placed upon hackers when searching for and disclosing vulnerabilities. Analysis of the institutional elements included in the policy documents of organisations reveals insufficient inclusion of many key components. Namely, legal information and information pertaining to restrictions on the backgrounds of hackers is found to be absent in a majority of policies analysed. Finally, to assist ongoing research, we provide novel annotated policy datasets that include human-labelled annotations at both the sentence and paragraph level, covering a broad range of CVD programme backgrounds.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causal Inconsistencies are Normal in Windows Memory Dumps (too) InvesTEE: A TEE-supported Framework for Lawful Remote Forensic Investigations Does Cyber Insurance promote Cyber Security Best Practice? An Analysis based on Insurance Application Forms Unveiling Cyber Threat Actors: A Hybrid Deep Learning Approach for Behavior-based Attribution A Framework for Enhancing Social Media Misinformation Detection with Topical-Tactics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1