Security Blog

The latest news and insights from Google on security and safety on the Internet

Spurring more vulnerability research through increased rewards

23 aprile 2012
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Google

8 commenti :

Anonimo ha detto...

Stand alone vulerabilities, aren't as in demand as custom built attacks. Eg: Stuxnet

---

Andrew Wallace

Independent consultant

http://www.n3td3v.org.uk/

23 aprile 2012 alle ore 17:49
AB5NI ha detto...

So, do we get a "get out of jail free" card if we start trying to hack google to find these vulnerabilities, and do we have to register somewhere so u guys know it's just us trying to win a prize and not actually attack ur sites/code, or are u encouraging us to attack your services -- no holds barred? :D

I'm a bit rusty on some of this stuff because of working on other projects, etc., and I'm wondering what kind of resources you guys are going to be providing to help us get our feet wet again? Any chance of some youtube videos and "Hack Google 101" blog enteries, or are we pretty much on our own?

Anyway, thank u very much for the new offer, guys/google, and I think I found a new "hobby." :D.

Randall Jouett
Amateur Radio: AB5NI

24 aprile 2012 alle ore 18:47
McFred ha detto...

Would be great to explain what they are looking for in a mainstream language that non technical user can understand to make the flaw's hunt fairer to anyone. Also, Google have probably specific flaw they are looking for and rewarding $20000 will be at reach of the most perverting flaw for the most technical genius who already know programming. This reducing the amount of people who can report google's flaw to google team ;-) Cunning!

25 aprile 2012 alle ore 03:46
AB5NI ha detto...

@McFred

Not too sure this would ever be doable by the non-technical community. Doing something like this will require years of study, familiarity with system and various OS architectures and instruction sets, XSS, SQL Injection and the use of an interactive disassembler. I have this skillset, but I'm just not up to snuff on the latest, greatest techniques. Basically, this is Google's "call to arms" for the technically oriented that are staying in the background, and upping the reward will (hopefully) pull them out of the woodwork -- and Google knows this...

Overall, this is a great move by Google. It will stimulate the security market and also help to make their services much less vulnerable to attack, and that will translate into more folks using their products, such as Android and Chrome -- and that translates into more bucks for Google. Smart move on their behalf.

Randall Jouett
Amateur Radio: AB5NI

26 aprile 2012 alle ore 00:29
Best Business Brands ha detto...

Unequivocally, yes. Despite the risks, vulnerability research is enormously valuable. Security is a mindset, and looking for vulnerabilities nurtures that mindset.

1 maggio 2012 alle ore 10:22
Patrick Murphy ha detto...

While I appreciate "the hunt", can we get a waiver in writing detailing that we can actually hack Google because we're "on a mission from God"?
Pat Murphy
LPT Security Consulting

9 maggio 2012 alle ore 10:35
Unknown ha detto...

Pls which email can we report the bug to. And i got a message from dis email(vulnerabilityrewards2012@gmail.com) after reporting a bug on gmail that i am rewarded with $3133. Pls hw true is it.

18 giugno 2012 alle ore 06:50
Unknown ha detto...

So its kind of more strict I guess, the updated rules for rewards program more tougher than before..

4 settembre 2012 alle ore 01:02

Posta un commento

  

Etichette


  • #sharethemicincyber
  • #supplychain #security #opensource
  • android
  • android security
  • android tr
  • app security
  • big data
  • biometrics
  • blackhat
  • C++
  • chrome
  • chrome enterprise
  • chrome security
  • connected devices
  • CTF
  • diversity
  • encryption
  • federated learning
  • fuzzing
  • Gboard
  • google play
  • google play protect
  • hacking
  • interoperability
  • iot security
  • kubernetes
  • linux kernel
  • memory safety
  • Open Source
  • pha family highlights
  • pixel
  • privacy
  • private compute core
  • Rowhammer
  • rust
  • Security
  • security rewards program
  • sigstore
  • spyware
  • supply chain
  • targeted spyware
  • tensor
  • Titan M2
  • VDP
  • vulnerabilities
  • workshop


Archive


  •     2025
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2024
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2023
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2022
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2021
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2020
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2019
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2018
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2017
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2016
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2015
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2014
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2013
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • ago
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2012
    • dic
    • set
    • ago
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
    • gen
  •     2011
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
    • feb
  •     2010
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • ago
    • lug
    • mag
    • apr
    • mar
  •     2009
    • nov
    • ott
    • ago
    • lug
    • giu
    • mar
  •     2008
    • dic
    • nov
    • ott
    • ago
    • lug
    • mag
    • feb
  •     2007
    • nov
    • ott
    • set
    • lug
    • giu
    • mag

Feed

Follow
Give us feedback in our Product Forums.
  • Google
  • Privacy
  • Terms