See Something, Say Something: Coordinating the Disclosure of Security Vulnerabilities in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ill-intentioned actors are rapidly developing the technological means to exploit vulnerabilities in the web assets, software, hardware, and networked infrastructure of governments around the world. Numerous jurisdictions have adopted the policy approach of facilitating coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD) as one means to better secure the public sector’s systems, through which external security researchers are provided a predictable and cooperative process to disclose security flaws for patching before they are exploited. Canada is falling behind its peers and allies in adopting such an approach. A global scan of vulnerability disclosure policy approaches indicates that 60 percent of G20 member countries provide distinct and clear disclosure processes for vulnerabilities involving government systems, with many providing clarity regarding the disclosure process and expectations for security researchers regarding communication and acceptable activity. The Netherlands and the US are particularly leading the way when it comes to providing comprehensive policy and pragmatic solutions for external vulnerability disclosure, acting as a learning model for Canada. Both countries have also begun to provide explicit legal clarification regarding acceptable security research activity, particularly in the context of coordinated vulnerability disclosure. In Canada, there exists no legal or policy framework regarding security research and vulnerability disclosure done in good faith; that is, done with the intent and in such a way to repair the vulnerability while causing minimal harm. Absent this framework, discovering and disclosing vulnerabilities may result in a security researcher facing liability under the Criminal Code, as well as potentially the Copyright Act, if exemptions do not apply. Whistleblower legislation in Canada generally would also not apply to vulnerability disclosure except in very limited, specific instances. Further, Canada’s Centre for Cyber Security — and its parent agency the Communications Security Establishment — currently have practices and policies that may discourage people from disclosing vulnerabilities and, on top of this, are also opaque about how such vulnerabilities are handled. The cumulative effect of this approach in Canada means that there is no straightforward or transparent path for a person wishing to responsibly disclose a security vulnerability found in the computer systems used by the Government of Canada — resulting in possible non-disclosure, public disclosure before remediation, or otherwise enabling the use of security vulnerabilities by attackers in ways that could jeopardize the security of Canada’s computer systems and the people that they serve. In light of these findings, we advocate for the following three policy solutions in Canada to remedy these gaps: 1. Canada needs a policy framework for good faith vulnerability discovery and disclosure; 2. Canada should carefully implement coordinated vulnerability disclosure procedures for the federal government’s computer systems, and draw on emerging best practices as it does so; and 3. Vulnerabilities disclosed to the government from external actors should be kept separate from the government’s handling of vulnerabilities uncovered internally in the course of Canada’s defensive and offensive intelligence efforts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,034 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».