Full Disclosure Policy (RFPolicy) v2.0

This policy was available at http://www.wiretrip.net/rfp/policy.html
Since this site is currently (13 Jul 2010) down, we provide a copy here.

This policy states the 'guidelines' that an individual intends to follow. You basically have 5 days (read below for the definitions and semantics of what is considered a 'day') to return contact to the individual, and must keep in contact with them *at least* every 5 days. Failure to do so will discourage them from working with you and encourage them to publicly disclose the security problem.

This policy is not set in stone--in fact, it is encouraged that all parties regularly communicate with each during the process, adjusting as situations arise.

Purpose of this policy

Policy definitions

Policy

Detailed/commented explanation of policy

RFPolicy FAQ

Using this policy

Credits

This policy exists to establish a guideline for interaction between a researcher and software maintainer. It serves to quash assumptions and clearly define intentions, so that both parties may immediately and effectively gauge the problem, produce a solution, and disclose the vulnerability.

First and foremost, a wake-up call to the software maintainer: the researcher has chosen to NOT immediately disclose the problem, but rather make an effort to work with you. This is a choice they did not have to make, and a choice that hopefully you will respect and accept accordingly.

The goal of following this policy, above all else, is education:


Education of the vendor to the problem (ISSUE, as defined below).

Education of the researcher on how the vendor intends to fix the problem, and what caveats might cause a solution to be delayed.

Education of the community of the problem, and hopefully a resolution.
With education, through continued communication between the researcher and software maintainer, it allows both parties to see where the other one is coming from. Coupled with compensation*, the experience is then beneficial to the researcher, vendor, and community. Win/win/win for everybody. :)

(*Compensation is meant to include credit for discovery of the ISSUE, and perhaps in some cases, encouragement from the vendor to continue research, which might include product updates, premier technical subscriptions, etc. Monetary compensation, or any situation that could be misconstrued as extortion, is highly discouraged.)

The ISSUE is the vulnerability, problem, or otherwise reason for contact and communication.

The ORIGINATOR is the individual or group submitting the ISSUE.

The MAINTAINER is the individual, group, or vendor that maintains the software, hardware, or resources that are related to the ISSUE.

The DATE OF CONTACT is the point in time when the ORIGINATOR contacts the MAINTAINER.

All dates, times, and time zones are relative to the ORIGINATOR.

A work day is generally defined in respect to the ORIGINATOR.

A. The ORIGINATOR will send email regarding the ISSUE to the MAINTAINER; the point in time when email is sent from the ORIGINATOR is considered the DATE OF CONTACT.

It is important that the ORIGINATOR review any documentation included with the object of the ISSUE for indication of a proper method of contact. That failing, the ORIGINATOR should check the web site of the MAINTAINER for methods of contact. Should the ORIGINATOR not be able to locate a suitable email address for the MAINTAINER, the ORIGINATOR should address the ISSUE to:

security-alert@[MAINTAINER]
secure@[MAINTAINER]
security@[MAINTAINER]
support@[MAINTAINER]
info@[MAINTAINER]

regardless of their existence. Anyone who could be deemed as a 'MAINTAINER' is encouraged to populate at least some of the above email addresses. Email auto-responses should not be considered as a message from the MAINTAINER.

Note: addressing the ISSUE to InterNIC handles may cause the email to be misdirected (for example, to a virtual hosting company who happens to host the MAINTAINER's web site). Addressing the ISSUE to the above listed email addresses may cause the email to be received by non-authoritative persons (for example, to an online service provider who happens to have an user named 'security-alert').

B. The MAINTAINER is to be given 5 working days (in respects to the ORIGINATOR) from the DATE OF CONTACT; should no contact occur by the end of 5 working days, the ORIGINATOR should disclose the ISSUE. Should the MAINTAINER contact the ORIGINATOR within the 5 working days, it is at the discretion of the ORIGINATOR to delay disclosure past 5 working days. The decision to delay should be passed upon active communication between the ORIGINATOR and MAINTAINER.

C. Requests from the MAINTAINER for help in reproducing problems or for additional information should be honored by the ORIGINATOR. The ORIGINATOR is encouraged to delay disclosure of the ISSUE if the MAINTAINER provides feasible reasons for requiring so.

D. If the MAINTAINER goes beyond 5 working days without any communication to the ORIGINATOR, the ORIGINATOR may choose to disclose the ISSUE. The MAINTAINER is responsible for providing regular status updates (regarding the resolution of the ISSUE) at least once every 5 working days.

E. In respect for the ORIGINATOR following this policy, the MAINTAINER is encouraged to provide proper credit to the ORIGINATOR for doing so. Failure to document credit to the ORIGINATOR may leave the ORIGINATOR unwilling to follow this policy with the same MAINTAINER on future issues, at the ORIGINATOR's discretion. Suggested (minimal) credit would be:

"Credit to [ORIGINATOR] for disclosing the problem to [MAINTAINER]."

F. The MAINTAINER is encouraged to coordinate a joint public release/disclosure with the ORIGINATOR, so that advisories of problem and resolution can be made available together.

G. If the ISSUE is publicly disclosed, by a third-party, the ORIGINATOR is encouraged to discuss the current status of the ISSUE with the MAINTAINER; based on that discussion, the ORIGINATOR may choose to disclose the ISSUE. The MAINTAINER is encouraged to credit the ORIGINATOR for discovering the ISSUE. Should the MAINTAINER disclose the ISSUE, or items supporting/relating to the ISSUE (patches, fixes, etc), the ORIGINATOR may choose to disclose the ISSUE.

This section serves to elaborate on the items in the policy, for better understanding.

A. Pretty self explanatory--the ORIGINATOR is to email the MAINTAINER about the problem. The ORIGINATOR should do their homework and try to find the correct address to email (by checking the MAINTAINER's web site, by looking in documentation distributed with the software/product, etc). Emailing InterNIC handles or addresses such as 'postmaster' or 'webmaster' is not good, since they are most likely IT support staff and not the proper representatives to handle such a situation.

B. The MAINTAINER has 5 work days respond. Note that all times of work days are relative to the ORIGINATOR, not the MAINTAINER. Suggestion to the MAINTAINER: sooner is better than later--just because you have 5 days does not mean you need to take them all. The ORIGINATOR is technically free to do whatever they want to do after 5 work days--however, they should be fair and wait if the MAINTAINER shows adequate initiative to fix the ISSUE.

C. Just as the MAINTAINER shouldn't ignore the ORIGINATOR, neither should the ORIGINATOR ignore the MAINTAINER. The ORIGINATOR should help the MAINTAINER recreate the problem, if necessary. It's probably in the best interest of the ORIGINATOR to help the MAINTAINER confirm the problem--otherwise, the ORIGINATOR stands to disclose a potentially false ISSUE.

D. The MAINTAINER has to actively give status reports. Note that it's the MAINTAINER's responsibility to do so, and not the ORIGINATOR's responsibility to request them.

E. If the ORIGINATOR does indeed take the time to follow this policy, they should be acknowledged not only for doing so, but in general, acknowledged for finding the problem. There are proper ways to cite references, credit sources, and otherwise respect the origination of information--I suggest vendors do the same. If you can not respect the ORIGINATOR enough for taking the time to notify you of the ISSUE, the ORIGINATOR (and possibly others) may feel reluctant to follow this policy with the same MAINTAINER in the future.

F. Making the problem and solution advisories available together allows the community to have immediate access to both the problem description and the appropriate fix.

G. If the MAINTAINER feels it's appropriate to alert the public of the issue, then there's no reason why the ORIGINATOR should not. Traditionally, alerting the community of a problem (but not providing full exploit details) has proven to be futile; other researchers are then just as likely to discover the problem as well--and they may not bide by the guidelines set by this policy. Therefore, if the issue is to be disclosed, all aspects of it should be disclosed. If a third-party discovers and publishes the vulnerability, the MAINTAINER and ORIGINATOR should evaluate the status of a fix, and act accordingly. No matter what, the MAINTAINER should always credit the ORIGINATOR.

Q. This policy uses dates and times for gauging responses. How do time zones/holidays/weekends/cultural differences factor in?
A. First off, as noted above, all dates and times are relative to the ORIGINATOR. Now, it is quite possible that a difference in date/time perspective occurs, due to: the ORIGINATOR being on a different continent than the MAINTAINER, the MAINTAINER having a different work week than the ORIGINATOR, the MAINTAINER being sick, the MAINTAINER taking an extended weekend, the MAINTAINER having a holiday, etc. Therefore the initial contact period was extended to 5 days--we feel that 5 days should be adequate to surmount any date/time differences.

Q. I'm a software maintainer, and I can't possibly fix the problem in 5 days....
A. You don't have to. If you (re)read the above, you have 5 days to establish communication. Provided you cooperate with the researcher and keep them 'in the loop', they should provide you with whatever time necessary to resolve the ISSUE (within fair reason).

Q. I'm a software maintainer, and I want more than 5 days!
A. Well, considering that, in general, you don't have *anything* technically, this document hopes to provide you with at least 5. Be on your best behavior, cooperate with the ORIGINATOR, and you should get more. :)

Q. You mention compensation--do ORIGINATORs expect to be paid?
A. NO! (Well, they shouldn't...I can't definitely predict the expectations of people) Compensation, as mentioned in this policy, is meant first-and-foremost to be PROPER CREDIT. Academia has historically and religiously provided credit when referencing all types of works and research; the ISSUE provided by the ORIGINATOR should also be thought of as research, and the ORIGINATOR should be credited accordingly. Now, beyond that, it may be in the vendor's best interest to promote good relations with the researcher, and one suggested way is to provide updates and product licenses. A lot of research is done on evaluation and trial versions of software--providing a single, full license/copy should produce little impact on the vendor, but greatly help the researcher. Another suggestion is to allow access to support sites/technical content, such as TechNet

This policy is free for anyone to modify, republish, sell, or otherwise use. The goal is to establish communication and interaction amongst the security community (users, researchers, and vendors)--not hamper it with copyrights and trademarks.

People are encouraged to use this policy or derivatives. You can make use this policy by supplying the URL (found at the top of this document) in the initial vendor contact email, and giving indication that you intend to following the guidelines stated.

If you intend to be an ORIGINATOR, we suggest you prefix your advisory sent to the MAINTAINER with something similar to:

"This advisory is being provided to you under the policy documented at http://www.wiretrip.net/rfp/policy.html. You are encouraged to read this policy; however, in the interim, you have approximately 5 days to respond to this initial email. This policy encourages open communication, and I look forward to working with you on resolving the problem detailed below."

In addition, should the ORIGINATOR and MAINTAINER arrive at a unified resolution and disclosure, it may be of interest to contact the CVE officials (http://cve.mitre.org) to assign a CVE identifier to the vulnerability. Doing so allows the vulnerability to be referenced and cataloged, facilitating it's acceptance and use into the community.

Since this is an important part of what this policy attempts to achieve, I should follow the same advice. :)

Version 2 was drafted after extensive input of the community (some 400+ individual suggestions were received). Apologies for not listing all 400+.

Thanks to the following people for initial concepts and input (version 1):

Aleph1 [aleph1-at-securityfocus.com]
Steve Manzuik [steve-at-securesolutions.org]
Weld Pond [weld-at-atstake.com]
Russ Cooper [russ.cooper-at-rc.on.ca]

Special thanks to Russ Cooper for the large amounts of feedback that helped shape version 1 of this policy.

- rain forest puppy [rfp-at-wiretrip.net]