The US National Security Agency (NSA) will not always disclose security vulnerabilities, such as Heartbleed, and said it assesses each case individually, according to a blog post on the White House website.
"Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forego an opportunity to collect crucial intelligence that could thwart a terrorist attack stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used by hackers or other adversaries to exploit our networks," government cyber security co-ordinator Michael Daniel explained. "We have also established a disciplined, rigorous and high-level decision-making process for vulnerability disclosure. This inter-agency process helps ensure that all of the pros and cons are properly considered and weighed."
The article continues with a list of factors used to assess disclosure:
Assuming these are the only factors they use, how reasonable do you think they are? What, if anything, would you change and why?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LookIntoTheFuture on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:36PM
We need protection online. But, it is a complete conflict of interest to have our protection come from the same people trying to undermine it. We need a separate group of people defending us from those that wish to cause us harm (harm that includes killing our privacy). A group that has the authority to even deny "lawful intercept".
But, that is a utopia that will never happen the way things are.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday May 02 2014, @09:17AM
"Trust is a fragile thing. Once lost, it can be extremely difficult to get back."
The lesson one can learn from politics (and corporate politics) in the US seems to be:
"The object of this game is not to not lose trust. The object of this game is to make sure the public loses more trust in the other poor bastard."
</Patton-Paraphrased>