... which is what vulnerability research teams are supposed to do, of course. Finding bugs in other people's products is, effectively, a donation to those projects. Google pays consultants many tens of thousands of dollars a pop to get the same work done for their own products.

To be even more precise, I don't care how P0 spend their time. If people don't like them blowing up their products, make better products.

But writing up an exploit that was basically handed to them is pretty weak evidence against the angry narrative.

Right, something like this page is better evidence against that narrative:

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/list?q=Produ...

The narrative seems to be both that p0 doesn't do research into Google's stuff, and that p0 doesn't post bulletins about vulns in Google's stuff. Both are untrue, but if you point out one, people flip to the other.

The amount of work they put into finding issues isn't relevant though, it's the benefit google might be getting from other companies bad PR. So this situation still seems like a counterexample to me.

It's only a donation if you assume the vulnerability is not cutting edge, otherwise it doesn't seem unfair to label the disclosure as corrosive to the current zeitgeist in terms of user safety. Just because you've managed to marry genuine research and politics doesn't mean that you've eliminated the more general bias produced by researching/disclosing information about opposing products more frequently than your own. At the same time, this also doesn't mean the system is bad, it could be entirely possible that the status quo of security without adversarial research is much worse for the end user.

I don't know what any of this means. The vulnerabilities exist no matter who discovers them, and vulnerability discovery is a service every major vendor pays dearly for. If the optics of discovery are bad for Apple or Microsoft, Apple or Microsoft should spend more to keep from being one-upped by P0.

From what you've said it seems like the difference is more an issue of framing. You're focused on the effects for the end user, which are the same no matter what in my opinion and I agree on that. At the same time, if you're publishing exploits that are cutting edge and primarily only apply to the competition then, because you (in this hypothetical) are a company, the overall effects of the research are self serving. Why not publish more vulnerabilities that apply to your own systems otherwise? Surely you (again, the hypothetical you) are in a better position than other entities to engage in introspective research that benefits the end user. Obviously there's a possibility that the explanation is "Because the competition has more flaws than our/my own product" but without evidence such is the case then there isn't a lot of reason for outside critics to give the benefit of the doubt. Also, I'm not a security researcher so I realize some of my points might not be accurate to the state of the industry. I'm moreso trying to highlight the lines of thinking that lead to criticism of P0 and why I don't think they're easy to refute without a certain degree of burden on Google's/Totallyrelatedbutnot-google's part.

I don't understand really any of this. Finding vulnerabilities in your competitors products is in fact a donation to those competitors and, more importantly, their users.

It sounds like the idea that it's a donation is the part where we fundamentally disagree then. If you expose an unpatched exploit and the number of people using that exploit goes up because of your publication then you've contributed to worsening the security landscape for whoever the relevant user is. If an exploit is years old, or if there's some other relevant context, then sure exposing a vulnerability mainly means that the parent company doesn't have to pay for the research. But it's not a favor they asked you to perform and if you have a competing product with that company then the question becomes "Why aren't you publishing more about yourself?" since surely no one is in a better position to do security research on your products than yourself or a contractor you hired. It's basically PR motivated research and when there's also a lack of transparency it leads to easy speculation that maybe you're holding back research on yourself purposefully or even simply not publishing the more damning research you discover about your own products.

There's no "agreement" or "disagreement" to be had here. Vulnerability researchers don't create vulnerabilities, they find and ultimately eliminate them. Vulnerability research at the level practiced by P0 commands huge daily rates, and Google's competitors actively pay those rates to other researchers. It is simply a fact that what Google is doing is a donation to other vendors and their users.

You can dispute their intentions, but I'm not all that interested in debating those. What you can't do is debate the effect, which is positive.

If you're not interested in debating their intentions then why frame it as a donation? That by itself is a normative judgement in this context, and the reason I brought up framing, since normally two primary characteristics of a donation are that it can be refused and that it is being offered in good faith.

This is the same general point that the original comment you had replied to was making which itself was an explanation of why people are distrustful of P0 even if the brass tax is positive for the end user. It's fine if you don't find that political side of it interesting but it's not as simple as just being a donation.

Google's competitors are getting a thing of great value at no cost. That's what a donation is.

If it's a great value then why isn't that effort being directed entirely towards google products? I get the argument you're making I think, that it's free valuable labor. But if that's true then what explanation is there for primarily publishing about competing products? Even if the argument was purely user safety then surely there would be no reason to publish unpatched problems publicly which has happened in the past and seems like the sort of thing that group like P0 could have chosen to handle in a more graceful fashion. Somewhere in the chain of command is a reason for why P0 focuses where it does and it doesn't seem likely that the reason is "Because we're rolling in gold and Apple and Microsoft could use the money."

There's no amount of axiomatic reasoning you're going to be able to generate to make your argument work. Vulnerability research is expensive. Google is giving it away to its competitors. Those competitors and, much more importantly and to a greater extent, their customers, benefit directly. Those aren't so much statements of opinion so much as they are simple facts.