Tag Archives: Security

bug-bounty reward amounts in curl

A while ago I tweeted the good news that we’ve handed over our largest single monetary reward yet in the curl bug-bounty program: 700 USD. We announced this security problem in association with the curl 7.71.0 release the other day.

Someone responded to me and wanted this clarified: we award 700 USD to someone for reporting a curl bug that potentially affects users on virtually every computer system out there – while Apple just days earlier awarded a researcher 100,000 USD for an Apple-specific security flaw.

The difference in “amplitude” is notable.

A bug-bounty

I think first we should start with appreciating that we have a bug-bounty program at all! Most open source projects don’t, and we didn’t have any program like this for the first twenty or so years. Our program is just getting started and we’re getting up to speed.

Donations only

How can we in the curl project hand out any money at all? We get donations from companies and individuals. This is the only source of funds we have. We can only give away rewards if we have enough donations in our fund.

When we started the bug-bounty, we also rather recently had started to get donations (to our Open Collective fund) and we were careful to not promise higher amounts than we would be able to pay, as we couldn’t be sure how many problems people would report and exactly how it would take off.

The more donations the larger the rewards

Over time it has gradually become clear that we’re getting donations at a level and frequency that far surpasses what we’re handing out as bug-bounty rewards. As a direct result of that, we’ve agreed in the the curl security team to increase the amounts.

For all security reports we get now that end up in a confirmed security advisory, we will increase the handed out award amount – until we reach a level we feel we can be proud of and stand for. I think that level should be more than 1,000 USD even for the lowest graded issues – and maybe ten times that amount for an issue graded “high”. We will however never get even within a few magnitudes of what the giants can offer.

Accumulated curl bug-bounty payouts to date. A so called hockey stick graph.

Are we improving security-wise?

The graph with number of reported CVEs per year shows that we started to get a serious number of reports in 2013 (5 reports) and it also seems to show that we’ve passed the peak. I’m not sure we have enough enough data and evidence to back this up, but I’m convinced we do a lot of things much better in the project now that should help to keep the amount of reports down going forward. In a few years when we look back we can see if I was right.

We’re at mid year 2020 now with only two reports so far, which if we keep this rate will make this the best CVE-year after 2012. This, while we offer more money than ever for reported issues and we have a larger amount of code than ever to find problems in.

Number of CVEs reported for curl distributed over the year of the announcement

The companies surf along

One company suggests that they will chip in and pay for an increased curl bug bounty if the problem affects their use case, but for some reason the problems just never seem to affect them and I’ve pretty much stopped bothering to even ask them.

curl is shipped with a large number of operating systems and in a large number of applications but yet not even the large volume users participate in the curl bug bounty program but leave it to us (and they rarely even donate). Perhaps you can report curl security issues to them and have a chance of a higher reward?

You would possibly imagine that these companies should be keen on helping us out to indirectly secure users of their operating systems and applications, but no. We’re an open source project. They can use our products for free and they do, and our products improve their end products. But if there’s a problem in our stuff, that issue is ours to sort out and fix and those companies can then subsequently upgrade to the corrected version…

This is not a complaint, just an observation. I personally appreciate the freedom this gives us.

What can you do to help?

Help us review code. Report bugs. Report all security related problems you can find or suspect exists. Get your company to sponsor us. Write awesome pull requests that improve curl and the way it does things. Use curl and libcurl in your programs and projects. Buy commercial curl support from the best and only provider of commercial curl support.

webinar: testing curl for security

Alternative title: “testing, Q&A, CI, fuzzing and security in curl”

June 30 2020, at 10:00 AM in Pacific Time (17:00 GMT, 19:00 CEST).

Time: 30-40 minutes

Abstract: curl runs in some ten billion installations in the world, in
virtually every connected device on the planet and ported to more operating systems than most. In this presentation, curl’s lead developer Daniel Stenberg talks about how the curl project takes on testing, QA, CI and fuzzing etc, to make sure curl remains a stable and secure component for everyone while still getting new features and getting developed further. With a Q&A session at the end for your questions!

Register here at attend the live event. The video will be made available afterward.

Daniel presenting at cs3sthlm 2019

Report: curl’s bug bounty one year in

On April 22nd 2019, we announced our current, this, incarnation of the curl bug bounty. In association with Hackerone we now run the program ourselves, primarily funded by gracious sponsors. Time to take a closer look at how the first year of bug bounty has been!

Number of reports

We’ve received a total of 112 reports during this period.

On average, we respond with a first comment to reports within the first hour and we triage them on average within the first day.

Out of the 112 reports, 6 were found actual security problems.

Total amount of reports vs actual security problems, per month during the first year of the curl hackerone bug bounty program.

Bounties

All confirmed security problems were rewarded a bounty. We started out a bit careful with the amounts but we are determined to raise them as we go along and we’ve seen that there’s not really a tsunami coming.

We’ve handed out 1,400 USD so far, which makes it an average of 233 USD per confirmed report. The top earner got two reports rewarded and received 450 USD from us. So far…

But again: our ambition is to significantly raise these amounts going forward.

Trends

The graph above speaks clearly: lots of people submitted reports when we opened up and the submission frequency has dropped significantly over the year.

A vast majority of the 112 reports we’ve received have were more or less rubbish and/or more or less automated reports. A large amount of users have reported that our wiki can be edited by anyone (which I consider to be a fundamental feature of a wiki) or other things that we’ve expressly said is not covered by the program: specific details about our web hosting, email setup or DNS config.

A rough estimate says that around 80% of the reports were quickly dismissed as “out of policy” – ie they reported stuff that we documented is not covered by the bug bounty (“Sirs, we can figure out what http server that’s running” etc). The curl bug bounty covers the products curl and libcurl, thus their source code and related specifics.

Bounty funds

curl has no ties to any organization. curl is not owned by any corporation. curl is developed by individuals. All the funds we have in the project are graciously provided to us by sponsors and donors. The curl funds are handled by the awesome Open Collective.

Security is of utmost importance to us. It trumps all other areas, goals and tasks. We aim to produce solid and secure products for the world and we act as swiftly and firmly as we can on all reported security problems.

Security vulnerability trends

We have not published a single CVE for curl yet this year (there was one announced, CVE-2019-15601 but after careful considerations we have backpedaled on that, we don’t consider it a flaw anymore and the CVE has been rejected in the records.)

As I write this, there’s been exactly 225 days since the latest curl CVE was published and we’re aiming at shipping curl 7.70.0 next week as the 6th release in a row without a security vulnerability to accompany it. We haven’t done 6 “clean” consecutive release like this since early 2013!

Looking at the number of CVEs reported in the curl project per year, we can of course see that 2016 stands out. That was the year of the security audit that ended up the release of curl 7.51.0 with no less than eleven security vulnerabilities announced and fixed. Better is of course the rightmost bar over the year 2020 label. It is still non-existent!

The most recent CVEs per year graph is always found: here.

As you can see in the graph below, the “plateau” in the top right is at 92 published CVEs. The previous record holder for longest period in the project without a CVE ended in February 2013 (with CVE-2013-0249) at 379 days.

2013 was however quite a different era for curl. Less code, much less scrutinizing, no bug bounty, lesser tools, no CI jobs etc.

Number of published CVEs in the curl project over time. The updated graph is always found: here.

Are we improving?

Is curl getting more secure?

We have more code and support more protocols than ever. We have a constant influx of new authors and contributors. We probably have more users than ever before in history.

At the same time we offer better incentives than ever before for people to report security bugs. We run more CI jobs than ever that run more and more test cases while code analyzers and memory debugging are making it easier to detect problems earlier. There are also more people looking for security bugs in curl than ever before.

Jinx?

I’m under no illusion that there aren’t more flaws to find, report and fix. We’re all humans and curl is still being developed at a fairly high pace.

Please report more security bugs!

Credits

Top image by Luisella Planeta Leoni from Pixabay

Warning: curl users on Windows using FILE://

The Windows operating system will automatically, and without any way for applications to disable it, try to establish a connection to another host over the network and access it (over SMB or other protocols), if only the correct file path is accessed.

When first realizing this, the curl team tried to filter out such attempts in order to protect applications for inadvertent probes of for example internal networks etc. This resulted in CVE-2019-15601 and the associated security fix.

However, we’ve since been made aware of the fact that the previous fix was far from adequate as there are several other ways to accomplish more or less the same thing: accessing a remote host over the network instead of the local file system.

The conclusion we have come to is that this is a weakness or feature in the Windows operating system itself, that we as an application and library cannot protect users against. It would just be a whack-a-mole race we don’t want to participate in. There are too many ways to do it and there’s no knob we can use to turn off the practice.

We no longer consider this to be a curl security flaw!

If you use curl or libcurl on Windows (any version), disable the use of the FILE protocol in curl or be prepared that accesses to a range of “magic paths” will potentially make your system try to access other hosts on your network. curl cannot protect you against this.

We have updated relevant curl and libcurl documentation to make users on Windows aware of what using FILE:// URLs can trigger (this commit) and posted a warning notice on the curl-library mailing list.

Previous security advisory

This was previously considered a curl security problem, as reported in CVE-2019-15601. We no longer consider that a security flaw and have updated that web page with information matching our new findings. I don’t expect any other CVE database to update since there’s no established mechanism for updating CVEs!

Credits

Many thanks to Tim Sedlmeyer who highlighted the extent of this issue for us.

Remote-exploiting curl

In a Blackhat 2019 presentation, three gentlemen from the Tencent Blade Team explained how they found and managed to exploit two curl flaws. Both related to NTLM over HTTP. The “client version Heartbleed” as they call it.

Reported responsibly

The Tencent team already reported the bugs responsibly to us and we already fixed them back in February 2019, but the talk is still very interesting I think.

From my point of view, as I have already discussed these bugs with the team when they were reported us and when I worked on fixing them, I find it very interesting and educational to learn more about how exactly they envision an attacker would go about and exploit them in practice. I have much too bad imagination sometimes to really think of how bad exactly the problems can end up when a creative attacker gets to play with them.

The security issues

The two specific issues these stellar gents found are already fixed since curl 7.64.0 and you can read all the gory details about them here: CVE-2018-16890 and CVE-2019-3822. The latter is clearly the worse issue.

For all I know, these exploits have never been seen or reported to happen in real life.

Upgrade?

Luckily, most distros that ship older curl versions still back-port and apply later security patches so even if you may see that you have an older curl version installed on your system, chances are it has already been patched. Of course there’s also a risk that it hasn’t, so you should probably make sure rather than presume…

The video

The slides from their presentation. (The talk also details SQLite issues but they’re completely separate from the curl ones.)

Bug Bounty?

Unfortunately, I’m sorry to admit that these excellent friends of ours did not get a bug bounty from us! 🙁

We got their reports before our bug bounty was setup and we didn’t have neither the means nor the methods to reward them back then. If someone would report such serious bugs now, only a year later, we would probably reward new such findings with several thousand dollars.

On NTLM

NTLM was always wrong, bad and a hack. It’s not an excuse for having bugs in our code but man if someone could just please make that thing go away…

curl 7.66.0 – the parallel HTTP/3 future is here

I personally have not done this many commits to curl in a single month (August 2019) for over three years. This increased activity is of course primarily due to the merge of and work with the HTTP/3 code. And yet, that is still only in its infancy…

Download curl here.

Numbers

the 185th release
6 changes
54 days (total: 7,845)

81 bug fixes (total: 5,347)
214 commits (total: 24,719)
1 new public libcurl function (total: 81)
1 new curl_easy_setopt() option (total: 269)

4 new curl command line option (total: 225)
46 contributors, 23 new (total: 2,014)
29 authors, 14 new (total: 718)
2 security fixes (total: 92)
450 USD paid in Bug Bounties

Two security advisories

TFTP small blocksize heap buffer overflow

(CVE-2019-5482) If you told curl to do TFTP transfers using a smaller than default “blocksize” (default being 512), curl could overflow a heap buffer used for the protocol exchange. Rewarded 250 USD from the curl bug bounty.

FTP-KRB double-free

(CVE-2019-5481) If you used FTP-kerberos with curl and the server maliciously or mistakenly responded with a overly large encrypted block, curl could end up doing a double-free in that exit path. This would happen on applications where allocating a large 32 bit max value (up to 4GB) is a problem. Rewarded 200 USD from the curl bug bounty.

Changes

The new features in 7.66.0 are…

HTTP/3

This experimental feature is disabled by default but can be enabled and works (by some definition of “works”). Daniel went through “HTTP/3 in curl” in this video from a few weeks ago:

Parallel transfers

You can now do parallel transfers with the curl tool’s new -Z / –parallel option. This is a huge change that might change a lot of use cases going forward!

Retry-after

There’s a standard HTTP header that some servers return when they can’t or won’t respond right now, which indicates after how many seconds or at what point in the future the request might be fulfilled. libcurl can now return that number easily and curl’s –retry option makes use of it (if present).

curl_multi_poll

curl_multi_poll is a new function offered that is very similar to curl_multi_wait, but with one major benefit: it solves the problem for applications of what to do for the occasions when libcurl has no file descriptor at all to wait for. That has been a long-standing and perhaps far too little known issue.

SASL authzid

When using SASL authentication, curl and libcurl now can provide the authzid field as well!

Bug-fixes

Some interesting bug-fixes included in this release..

.netrc and .curlrc on Windows

Starting now, curl and libcurl will check for and use the dot-prefixed versions of these files even on Windows and only fall back and check for and use the underscore-prefixed versions for compatibility if the dotted one doesn’t exist. This unifies curl’s behavior across platforms.

asyn-thread: create a socketpair to wait on

With this perhaps innocuous-sounding change, libcurl on Linux and other Unix systems will now provide a file descriptor for the application to wait on while name resolving in a background thread. This lets applications know better when to call libcurl again and avoids having to just blindly wait and retry. A performance gain.

Credentials in URL when using HTTP proxy

We found and fixed a regression that made curl not use credentials properly from the URL when doing multi stage authentication (like HTTP Digest) with a proxy.

Move code into vssh for SSH backends

A mostly janitor-style fix that also now abstracted away more SSH-using code to not know what particular SSH backend that is being used while at the same time making it easier to write and provide new SSH backends in the future. I’m personally working a little slowly on one, to be talked about at a later point.

Disable HTTP/0.9 by default

If you want libcurl to accept and deliver HTTP/0.9 responses to your application, you need to tell it to do that. Starting in this version, curl will consider those invalid HTTP responses by default.

alt-svc improvements

We introduced alt-svc support a while ago but as it is marked experimental and nobody felt a strong need to use it, it clearly hasn’t been used or tested much in real life. When we’ve worked on using alt-svc to bootstrap into HTTP/3 we found and fixed a whole range of little issues with the alt-svc support and it is now in a much better shape. However, it is still marked experimental.

IPv6 addresses in URLs

It was reported that the URL parser would accept malformatted IPv6 addresses that subsequently and counter-intuitively would get resolved as a host name internally! An example URL would be “https://[ab.de]/’ – where all the letters and symbols within the brackets are individually allowed components of a IPv6 numerical address but it still isn’t a valid IPv6 syntax and instead is a legitimate and valid host name.

Going forward!

We recently ran a poll among users of what we feel are the more important things to work on, and with that the rough roadmap has been updated. Those are things I want to work on next but of course I won’t guarantee anything and I will greatly appreciate all help and assistance that I can get. And sure, we can and will work on other things too!

The slowest curl vendors of all time

In the curl project we make an effort to ship security fixes as soon as possible after we’ve learned about a problem. We also “prenotify” (inform them about a problem before it gets known to the public) vendors of open source OSes ahead of the release to alert them about what is about to happen and to make it possible for them to be ready and prepared when we publish the security advisory of the particular problems we’ve found.

These distributors ship curl to their customers and users. They build curl from the sources they host and they apply (our and their own) security patches to the code over time to fix vulnerabilities. Usually they start out with the clean and unmodified version we released and then over time the curl version they maintain and ship gets old (by my standards) and the number of patches they apply grow, sometimes to several hundred.

The distros@openwall mailing list allows no more than 14 days of embargo, so they can never be told any further than so in advance.

We always ship at least one official patch for each security advisory. That patch is usually made for the previous version of curl and it will of course sometimes take a little work to backport to much older curl versions.

Red Hat

The other day I was reading LWN when I saw their regular notices about security updates from various vendors and couldn’t help checking out a mentioned curl security fix from Red Hat for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. It was dated July 29, 2019 and fixed CVE-2018-14618, which we announced on September 5th 2018. 327 days ago.

Not quite reaching Apple’s level, Red Hat positions themselves as number three in this toplist with this release.

An interesting detail here is that the curl version Red Hat fixed here was 7.29.0, which is the exact same version our winner also patched…

(Update after first publication: after talks with people who know things I’ve gotten some further details. Red Hat did ship a fix for this problem already in 2018. This 2019 one was a subsequent update for complicated reasons, which may or may not make this entry disqualified for my top-list.)

Apple

At times when I’ve thought it has been necessary, I’ve separately informed the product security team at Apple about a pending release with fixes that might affect their users, and almost every time I’ve done that they’ve responded to me and asked that I give them (much) longer time between alert and release in the future. (Requests I’ve ignored so far because it doesn’t match how we work nor how the open vendors want us to behave). Back in 2010, I noticed how one of the security fixes took 391 days for Apple to fix. I haven’t checked, but I hope they’re better at this these days.

With the 391 days, Apple takes place number two.

Oracle

Oracle Linux published the curl errata named ELSA-2019-1880 on July 30 2019 and it apparently fixes nine different curl vulnerabilities. All nine were the result of the Cure53 security audit and we announced them on November 2 2016.

These problems had at that time been public knowledge for exactly 1000 days! The race is over and Oracle got this win by a pretty amazing margin.

In this case, they still ship curl 7.29.0 (released on February 6, 2013) when the latest curl version we ship is version 7.65.3. When I write this, we know about 47 security problems in curl 7.29.0. 14 of those problems were fixed after those nine problems that were reportedly fixed on July 30. It might mean, but doesn’t have to, that their shipped version still is vulnerable to some of those…

Top-3

Summing up, here’s the top-3 list of all times:

  1. Oracle: 1000 days
  2. Apple: 391 days
  3. Red Hat: 327 days

Ending notes

I’m bundling and considering all problems as equals here, which probably isn’t entirely fair. Different vulnerabilities will have different degrees of severity and thus will be more or less important to fix in a short period of time.

Still, these were security releases done by these companies so someone there at least considered them to be security related, worth fixing and worth releasing.

This list is entirely unscientific, I might have missed some offenders. There might also be some that haven’t patched these or even older problems and then they are even harder to spot. If you know of a case suitable for this top-list, let me know!

openssl engine code injection in curl

This flaw is known as CVE-2019-5443.

If you downloaded and installed a curl executable for Windows from the curl project before June 21st 2019, go get an updated one. Now.

On Windows, using OpenSSL

The official curl builds for Windows – that the curl project offers – are built cross-compiled on Linux. They’re made to use OpenSSL by default as the TLS backend, the by far most popular TLS backend by curl users.

The curl project has provided official curl builds for Windows on and off through history, but most recently this has been going on since August 2018.

OpenSSL engines

These builds use OpenSSL. OpenSSL has a feature called “engines”. Described by the project itself like this:

“a component to support alternative cryptography implementations, most commonly for interfacing with external crypto devices (eg. accelerator cards). This component is called ENGINE”

More simply put, an “engine” is a plugin for OpenSSL that can be loaded and run dynamically. The particular engine is activated either built-in or by loading a config file that specifies what to do.

curl and OpenSSL engines

When using curl built with OpenSSL, you can specify an “engine” to use, which in turn allows users to use their dedicated hardware when doing TLS related communications with curl.

By default, the curl tool allows OpenSSL to load a config file and figure out what engines to load at run-time but it also provides a build option to make it possible to build curl/libcurl without the ability to load that config file at run time – which some users want, primarily for security reasons.

The mistakes

The primary mistake in the curl build for Windows that we offered, was that the disabling of the config file loading had a typo which actually made it not disable it (because the commit message had it wrong). The feature was therefore still present and would load the config file if present when curl was invoked, contrary to the intention.

The second mistake comes a little more from the OpenSSL side: by default if you build OpenSSL cross-compiled like we do, the default paths where it looks for the above mentioned config file is under the c:\usr\local tree. It is in fact even complicated and impossible to fix this path in the build without a patch.

What the mistakes enable

A non-privileged user or program (the attacker) with access to the host to put a config file in the directory where curl would look for a config file (and create the directory first as it probably didn’t already exist) and the suitable associated engine code.

Then, when an privileged user subsequently executes curl, it will run with more power and run the code, the engine, the attacker had put there. An engine is a piece of compiled code, it can do virtually anything on the machine.

The fix

Already three days ago, on June 21st, a fixed version of the curl executable for Windows was uploaded to the curl web site (“curl 7.65.1_2”). All older versions that had been provided in the past were removed to reduce the risk of someone still using an old lingering download link.

The fix now makes the curl build switch off the loading of the config file, as was already intended. But also, the OpenSSL build that is used for the build is now modified to only load the config file from a privileged path that isn’t world writable (C:/Windows/System32/OpenSSL/).

Widespread mistake

This problem is very widespread among projects on Windows that use OpenSSL. The curl project coordinated this publication with the postgres project and have worked with OpenSSL to make them improve their default paths. We have also found a few other openssl-using projects that already have fixed their builds for this flaw (like stunnel) but I think we have reason to suspect that there are more vulnerable projects out there still not fixed.

If you know of a project that uses OpenSSL and ships binaries for Windows, give them a closer look and make sure they’re not vulnerable to this.

The cat is already out of the bag

When we got this problem reported, we soon realized it had already been publicly discussed and published for other projects even before we got to know about it. Due to this, we took it to publication as quick as possible to minimize user impact as much as we can.

Only on Windows and only with OpenSSL

This flaw only exists on curl for Windows and only if curl was built to use OpenSSL with this bad path and behavior.

Microsoft ships curl as part of Windows 10, but it does not use OpenSSL and is not vulnerable.

Credits

This flaw was reported to us by Rich Mirch.

The build was fixed by Viktor Szakats.

The image on the blog post comes from pixabay.

Report from the curl bounty program

We announced our glorious return to the “bug bounty club” (projects that run bug bounties) a month ago, and with the curl 7.65.0 release today on May 22nd of 2019 we also ship fixes to security vulnerabilities that were reported within this bug bounty program.

Announcement

Even before we publicly announced the program, it was made public on the Hackerone site. That was obviously enough to get noticed by people and we got the first reports immediately!

We have received 19 reports so far.

Infrastructure scans

Quite clearly some people have some scripts laying around and they do some pretty standard things on projects that pop up on hackerone. We immediately got a number of reports that reported variations of the same two things repeatedly:

  1. Our wiki is world editable. In my world I’ve lived under the assumption that this is how a wiki is meant to be but we ended up having to specifically mention this on curl’s hackerone page: yes it is open for everyone on purpose.
  2. Sending emails forging them to look like the come from the curl web site might work since our DNS doesn’t have SPF, DKIM etc setup. This is a somewhat better report, but our bounty program is dedicated for and focused on the actual curl and libcurl products. Not our infrastructure.

Bounties!

Within two days of the program’s life time, the first legit report had been filed and then within a few more days a second arrived. They are CVE-2019-5435 and CVE-2019-5436, explained somewhat in my curl 7.65.0 release post but best described in their individual advisories, linked to below.

I’m thrilled to report that these two reporters were awarded money for their findings:

Wenchao Li was awarded 150 USD for finding and reporting CVE-2019-5435.

l00p3r was awarded 200 USD for finding and reporting CVE-2019-5436.

Both these issues were rated severity level “Low” and we consider them rather obscure and not likely to hurt very many users.

Donate to help us fund this!

Please notice that we are entirely depending on donated funds to be able to run this program. If you use curl and benefit from a more secure curl, please consider donating a little something for the cause!

curl + hackerone = TRUE

There seems to be no end to updated posts about bug bounties in the curl project these days. Not long ago I mentioned the then new program that sadly enough was cancelled only a few months after its birth.

Now we are back with a new and refreshed bug bounty program! The curl bug bounty program reborn.

This new program, which hopefully will manage to survive a while, is setup in cooperation with the major bug bounty player out there: hackerone.

Basic rules

If you find or suspect a security related issue in curl or libcurl, report it! (and don’t speak about it in public at all until an agreed future date.)

You’re entitled to ask for a bounty for all and every valid and confirmed security problem that wasn’t already reported and that exists in the latest public release.

The curl security team will then assess the report and the problem and will then reward money depending on bug severity and other details.

Where does the money come from?

We intend to use funds and money from wherever we can. The Hackerone Internet Bug Bounty program helps us, donations collected over at opencollective will be used as well as dedicated company sponsorships.

We will of course also greatly appreciate any direct sponsorships from companies for this program. You can help curl getting even better by adding funds to the bounty program and help us reward hard-working researchers.

Why bounties at all?

We compete for the security researchers’ time and attention with other projects, both open and proprietary. The projects that can help put food on these researchers’ tables might have a better chance of getting them to use their tools, time, skills and fingers to find our problems instead of someone else’s.

Finding and disclosing security problems can be very time and resource consuming. We want to make it less likely that people give up their attempts before they find anything. We can help full and part time security engineers sustain their livelihood by paying for the fruits of their labor. At least a little bit.

Only released code?

The state of the code repository in git is not subject for bounties. We need to allow developers to do mistakes and to experiment a little in the git repository, while we expect and want every actual public release to be free from security vulnerabilities.

So yes, the obvious downside with this is that someone could spot an issue in git and decide not to report it since it doesn’t give any money and hope that the flaw will linger around and ship in the release – and then reported it and claim reward money. I think we just have to trust that this will not be a standard practice and if we in fact notice that someone tries to exploit the bounty in this manner, we can consider counter-measures then.

How about money for the patches?

There’s of course always a discussion as to why we should pay anyone for bugs and then why just pay for reported security problems and not for heroes who authored the code in the first place and neither for the good people who write the patches to fix the reported issues. Those are valid questions and we would of course rather pay every contributor a lot of money, but we don’t have the funds for that. And getting funding for this kind of dedicated bug bounties seem to be doable, where as a generic pay contributors fund is trickier both to attract money but it is also really hard to distribute in an open project of curl’s nature.

How much money?

At the start of this program the award amounts are as following. We reward up to this amount of money for vulnerabilities of the following security levels:

Critical: 2,000 USD
High: 1,500 USD
Medium: 1,000 USD
Low: 500 USD

Depending on how things go, how fast we drain the fund and how much companies help us refill, the amounts may change over time.

Found a security flaw?

Report it!