What happens if a vendor or researcher is in bed with the NSA and they use the exploit while embargoed?

The whole thing is a shit show and really I'm rather more behind OpenBSD's approach.

Edit just to expand on this as someone deleted a post ....

----

It's slightly more complicated than the prisoner's dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma doesn't account for a large facet of the problem which is being discussed here. If all the good parties participate and coordinate then we're better off. The problem is there are outlying circumstances which means that not everyone will be included:

1. If someone kicks someone out (OpenBSD) on political whim playing CYA, they no longer benefit.

2. If a party is not let in, they no longer benefit.

3. If someone is unaware of it, they don't benefit.

This turns it into a security monopoly where the big vendors get exclusive rights to embargo and exclude smaller vendors and control the disclosure process on their own schedule.

The first thing the people outside of the club find is they wake up on Monday morning and have to clear up a shitstorm of monumental proportions with less resources than the monopolised vendors who've had time to deal with it.

Then there's the assumption that the monopolised vendors are trustworthy which is 100% impossible to validate and therefore invalid.

Yeah, the hysterical part is how people think distros is leak proof. It just doesn't leak in nice public ways to allow "responsible white hats" to wag their fingers. Raise your hand if you can say you confidently know the full back channel distribution of a notification to distros.

Exactly that!

No bullshit please - you guys do a wonderful job of avoiding it and stamping on it when it does turn up. Keep up the good work :)

Ultimatum games [1] are a subset of prisoner's dilemmas. That covers Nos. 1 and 2. Assuming researchers want something from those they disclose to, it makes sense for them to cast the widest net possible while minimising the risk of defection. Balancing that optimization is a game as old as civilization.

> This turns it into a security monopoly where the big vendors get exclusive rights to embargo and exclude smaller vendors and control the disclosure process on their own schedule.

Not necessarily. It turns into a monopoly of those who can show themselves to be credible partners. This exhibits incumbency bias which in social context we call track record. It's not nearly as exclusionary as you're making it out to be.

> Then there's the assumption that the monopolised vendors are trustworthy which is 100% impossible to validate and therefore invalid

This is common in trust problems. You don't need to be 100% sure everyone you're dealing with is trustworthy to work with them because we don't live in a single-iteration game. Again, iterations of retaliation and forgiveness remove the need to have 100% certainty about a player's intentions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

Credible partners? Yeah right: http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/56411/hacking/windows-gd...

No one is credible here. The very nature of a closed agreement of secrecy between arbitrary parties is the opposite of credibility.

I am generally ok with that. Embargoes are retarded.