Security

Following days of criticism from the security community, Redmond dials back rhetoric, insists vulnerability hunters not in its legal crosshairs

Microsoft has moved to calm an increasingly noisy backlash from the security community after appearing to threaten legal action against a researcher who spent the past several weeks dumping Windows zero-days onto the internet.

In a statement published on Monday, Redmond said it has "no intention to pursue action against individuals conducting or publishing security research”, a noticeably softer position than the one it adopted just days earlier when it condemned a string of public vulnerability disclosures and invoked its Digital Crimes Unit.

The updated statement follows a public feud with a researcher known as Nightmare-Eclipse, who released multiple Windows zero-days along with proof-of-concept exploit code. Several of those vulnerabilities have since been exploited in the wild, turning what might have remained an obscure disclosure dispute into a much larger argument about how vendors handle security researchers.

Last week, Microsoft described the publication of exploit code for unpatched flaws as "never justifiable" and warned it would work with law enforcement when criminal activity harmed customers. The statement triggered immediate criticism from parts of the security community, with researchers warning that the language risked creating a chilling effect around vulnerability research.

Former Microsoft employee and security researcher Kevin Beaumont described the company's position as a "dumpster fire of its own making," while Luta Security founder Katie Moussouris, who created Microsoft's bug bounty program, told The Register the response sent mixed messages. 

She questioned Microsoft's decision to tout researcher compensation and recognition while responding to a researcher who claims he received neither, and argued that references to the Digital Crimes Unit made the post feel "vaguely threatening." She added that, regardless of the specifics of the dispute, Microsoft risked creating a chilling effect on other researchers considering whether to report vulnerabilities.

What’s more, if Microsoft's goal was to isolate Nightmare-Eclipse, that may not be going entirely to plan. The researcher claimed over the weekend that other researchers had begun handing over vulnerabilities following Microsoft's response, including an alleged flaw dubbed "Bitskrieg" that breaks Secure Boot trust guarantees and bypasses BitLocker. Nightmare-Ecipse said the bug will be released “sometime in June”. 

Against that backdrop, Microsoft's Monday message read more like damage control than deterrence.

"We have no intention to pursue action against individuals conducting or publishing their security research," Microsoft said, adding that legal referrals would be reserved for people engaging in malicious activity that causes harm to customers. The company also acknowledged that "some interactions have fallen short" and said it was working to learn from feedback.

Notably, Microsoft stopped well short of conceding any of Nightmare-Eclipse's specific allegations. The researcher had accused Microsoft of deleting accounts used for vulnerability reporting, refusing to pay bounties, and mishandling communications through the Microsoft Security Response Center. The company has not publicly addressed those claims directly.

Nobody should mistake Monday's statement for a sudden conversion to the church of full disclosure. Microsoft remains firmly of the view that researchers should report vulnerabilities privately, give vendors time to fix them, and avoid dropping working exploit code onto the internet for everyone else to play with.

The problem for Redmond was that the argument had drifted well beyond the actions of one researcher. What began as a dispute over a string of Windows zero-day releases was rapidly turning into a debate about Microsoft's relationship with the security community and whether the company was comfortable invoking lawyers when that relationship soured.

The updated statement looks very much like an attempt to slam the brakes on that narrative.  ®