While I understand the complexity and challenges involved in addressing every reported vulnerability, I believe this particular issue warrants further attention due to its potential implications.
The vulnerability involves manipulation of URL parameters in a way that could mislead users into believing they are accessing a safe Google link, while in reality, they're redirected to an untrusted site belonging to the attacker. This scenario raises concerns, especially considering the trust users place in URLs containing familiar domain names like Google's.
To be clear, I have not shared any explicit details or steps on how to exploit this vulnerability, as my intention is not to enable malicious use.
What advice and perspective on the following:
1/ Has anyone else encountered similar responses when reporting vulnerabilities to major tech companies?
2/ What would be the recommended course of action to ensure that such potential security issues are taken seriously and addressed appropriately?
3/ Are there any additional steps I can take to advocate for the responsible resolution of such issues, considering the initial response?
Thank you for your time and thoughts.
So let everyone else know. Either people will agree with Google and this wasn’t a big issue, or they’ll agree with you and criticise Google. From the latter, either they will fix it or they won’t but everyone else wins because they either know to not trust Google because of a known vulnerability or the problem will no longer be.
But keeping this a secret for long will be harmful. If you found it, bad actors can too. For all we know this is being exploited today.
According to Wikipedia [1]:
"In computer security, coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD, formerly known as responsible disclosure)[1] is a vulnerability disclosure model in which a vulnerability or an issue is disclosed to the public only after the responsible parties have been allowed sufficient time to patch or remedy the vulnerability or issue."
and when it comes to Google:
"Google Project Zero has a 90-day disclosure deadline which starts after notifying vendors of vulnerability, with details shared in public with the defensive community after 90 days, or sooner if the vendor releases a fix."
In other words, I think they would publish a vulnerability they would find in your software (after the disclosure deadline). Why wouldn't you do the same for them?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_vulnerability_disc...