Responsible Disclosure Policy & Communication Framework
This document provides a comprehensive framework for responsible vulnerability disclosure processes, establishing clear policies, communication strategies, and stakeholder engagement approaches for AI security vulnerabilities discovered through bounty programs.
Disclosure Policy Foundation
Core Disclosure Principles
Fundamental principles guiding responsible disclosure:
| Principle | Description | Implementation Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Harm Minimization | Preventing potential harm from vulnerability information | Balance transparency with risk, considering timing, detail level, and audience |
| Researcher Recognition | Acknowledging researcher contributions appropriately | Provide clear credit policies with researcher input on recognition preferences |
| Transparency | Being open about vulnerabilities and remediation | Share meaningful information without enabling attacks, focus on lessons learned |
| Timeliness | Addressing and disclosing issues in appropriate timeframes | Establish clear timelines with flexibility for complex issues |
| Coordination | Working collaboratively with affected parties | Engage relevant stakeholders early in disclosure process |
Disclosure Policy Structure
Key elements of a comprehensive disclosure policy:
disclosure_policy:
# Fundamental policy framework
policy_foundation:
purpose: "To establish clear guidelines for responsible vulnerability disclosure"
scope: "All vulnerabilities reported through the security bounty program"
principles: ["Harm Minimization", "Researcher Recognition", "Transparency", "Timeliness", "Coordination"]
# Timeline and process structure
disclosure_process:
acknowledgment:
timeframe: "Within 1 business day"
requirements: ["Confirm receipt", "Provide case identifier", "Set expectations"]
validation:
timeframe: "Within 5 business days for standard reports"
requirements: ["Validate vulnerability", "Determine severity", "Communicate status"]
remediation:
timeframe: "Based on severity classification"
critical: "30 days target remediation"
high: "60 days target remediation"
medium: "90 days target remediation"
low: "Scheduled based on development cycles"
public_disclosure:
approach: "Coordinated disclosure following remediation"
timeframe: "30-90 days after remediation completion"
exceptions: ["Critical safety concerns", "Active exploitation", "Regulatory requirements"]
# Researcher engagement guidelines
researcher_guidelines:
communication:
channels: ["Program platform", "Encrypted email", "Secure messaging"]
expectations: ["Regular status updates", "Advance notice of disclosure", "Transparency on timeline"]
recognition:
options: ["Public acknowledgment", "Anonymity", "Detailed recognition"]
documentation: ["Vulnerability advisory", "Security bulletin", "Recognition page"]
restrictions:
prohibited: ["Sharing with third parties before remediation", "Public disclosure without coordination", "Exploitation beyond validation"]
requirements: ["Maintain confidentiality during process", "Coordinate on disclosure timing", "Responsible use of vulnerability information"]
# Organizational disclosure roles
disclosure_roles:
security_team:
responsibilities: ["Vulnerability validation", "Researcher communication", "Disclosure coordination"]
authorities: ["Initial severity determination", "Timeline management", "Disclosure content creation"]
product_team:
responsibilities: ["Remediation implementation", "Technical accuracy verification", "Impact assessment"]
authorities: ["Remediation approach", "Technical detail accuracy", "Release timing"]
communications_team:
responsibilities: ["Disclosure format guidance", "External communication management", "Audience consideration"]
authorities: ["Communication channel selection", "External messaging", "Media engagement"]
legal_team:
responsibilities: ["Legal risk assessment", "Regulatory compliance", "Legal review of disclosure"]
authorities: ["Legal risk determination", "Regulatory notification requirements", "Legal language approval"]
Legal Framework Considerations
Key legal considerations for disclosure policies:
| Legal Aspect | Considerations | Implementation Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Safe Harbor | Legal protections for good-faith research | Clearly define scope of protected research activities and limitations |
| Confidentiality | Protection of sensitive vulnerability information | Establish explicit confidentiality requirements with specific timeframes and terms |
| Terms and Conditions | Legal framework for program participation | Develop comprehensive terms with legal review, covering all program aspects |
| Jurisdictional Factors | Management of different legal jurisdictions | Consider international legal implications and jurisdiction-specific requirements |
| Regulatory Requirements | Alignment with mandatory disclosure regulations | Map disclosure policy to relevant regulatory frameworks |
Disclosure Process Framework
Disclosure Timeline Management
Structured approach to disclosure timing:
| Phase | Timing Guidance | Flexibility Factors | Communication Expectations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Response | 1-2 business days | Report volume, staffing availability | Acknowledge receipt, set expectations for validation |
| Validation | 5-10 business days | Technical complexity, reproducibility challenges | Communicate validation status, severity assessment |
| Remediation Planning | 7-14 days from validation | Vulnerability complexity, system dependencies | Share remediation approach, timeline expectations |
| Remediation Implementation | Based on severity (30-90 days) | Technical complexity, testing requirements, deployment considerations | Provide regular progress updates, timeline adjustments |
| Public Disclosure | 30-90 days post-remediation | Exploitation risk, coordination requirements, verification needs | Coordinate timing, content, and approach with researcher |
Stakeholder Coordination
Framework for managing disclosure across stakeholders:
| Stakeholder | Involvement Timing | Information Requirements | Coordination Approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Teams | Early in process | Vulnerability details, impact assessment, remediation requirements | Regular coordination meetings, shared communication channels |
| Affected Partners | After validation and impact assessment | Vulnerability impact, mitigation options, timing expectations | Private notification, coordinated remediation, joint disclosure planning |
| Researcher | Throughout process | Status updates, remediation approach, disclosure timing | Regular updates, disclosure coordination, recognition planning |
| Customers/Users | Based on disclosure strategy | Impact explanation, remediation status, required actions | Coordinated communication plan, appropriate detail level |
| Industry Groups | When broader impact possible | Anonymized vulnerability information, industry implications | Information sharing through appropriate channels |
Disclosure Content Development
Guidelines for creating effective disclosure content:
| Content Element | Purpose | Development Guidance | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability Description | Clear explanation of the issue | Balance technical accuracy with accessibility, avoid enabling exploitation | "A vulnerability in the model's parameter handling allowed potential extraction of training data under specific conditions" |
| Technical Details | Sufficient information for understanding | Provide meaningful technical context without exploitation enablement | "The vulnerability involved a specific pattern of API calls that could reveal model parameter information" |
| Impact Assessment | Explanation of security implications | Clear description of realistic impact, avoid speculation | "This vulnerability could allow an attacker to extract limited information about model configuration" |
| Remediation Information | How the issue was addressed | Describe approach without creating new vulnerabilities | "We have implemented enhanced parameter validation and monitoring to address this vulnerability" |
| Lessons Learned | Broader security improvements | Share valuable insights for community benefit | "This finding has led us to implement more rigorous API endpoint security testing" |
Communication Strategy
Disclosure Format Options
Different approaches to vulnerability disclosure:
| Format | Description | Best For | Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security Advisory | Formal notification with structured vulnerability information | Significant vulnerabilities requiring customer action | Requires careful balance of detail and security, formal tracking |
| Security Bulletin | Less formal notification focusing on practical implications | Moderate vulnerabilities with limited impact | Needs clear practical guidance while maintaining appropriate detail level |
| Release Notes | Inclusion in standard release documentation | Minor issues addressed in regular updates | May lack visibility, requires consideration of detail appropriateness |
| Security Blog Post | Detailed narrative with context and lessons learned | Complex vulnerabilities with broader implications | Provides education opportunity but requires careful detail management |
| Direct Communication | Targeted information to affected parties | Limited impact issues affecting specific customers | Ensures relevant information reaches affected parties but may limit transparency |
Audience-Specific Communication
Tailoring disclosure information for different audiences:
| Audience | Information Needs | Communication Approach | Detail Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Security Teams | Detailed technical information for security assessment | Technical advisories with specific vulnerability details | High technical detail with specific technical indicators |
| Executive Leadership | Impact assessment and strategic implications | Executive summaries focusing on business impact | Limited technical detail, focus on risk and business implications |
| Developers | Implementation details for similar systems | Technical guidance on vulnerability patterns and prevention | Moderate to high technical detail with implementation focus |
| General Users | Practical implications and required actions | Clear, accessible explanations of impact and steps | Limited technical detail, focus on practical implications |
| Regulatory Bodies | Compliance-relevant vulnerability information | Formal notifications meeting regulatory requirements | Detail level based on regulatory requirements |
Recognition Framework
Approaches to researcher recognition:
| Recognition Element | Options | Researcher Choice | Implementation Guidance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attribution | Named credit, pseudonym, anonymous | Researcher preference with organizational review | Clearly document preference and obtain explicit permission for named credit |
| Detail Level | Full detail, limited information, acknowledgment only | Collaborative determination | Balance researcher desire for recognition with security considerations |
| Format | Advisory credit, security page listing, blog highlight | Organizational standards with researcher input | Establish consistent recognition formats with some flexibility |
| Timing | With disclosure, after period, immediate | Based on disclosure strategy | Align with overall disclosure timing while respecting researcher preference |
Disclosure Scenarios and Response Templates
Scenario-Based Disclosure Approaches
Tailored approaches for different disclosure scenarios:
| Scenario | Disclosure Approach | Timeline Considerations | Communication Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Vulnerability | Normal coordinated disclosure | Standard remediation timeline based on severity | Regular advisory with standard detail level |
| Active Exploitation | Accelerated disclosure with mitigation focus | Expedited timeline based on exploitation risk | Focus on immediate mitigation with accelerated advisory |
| Industry-Wide Issue | Coordinated industry disclosure | Extended coordination timeline | Joint disclosure with industry partners |
| High-Profile Vulnerability | Comprehensive disclosure with detailed context | Standard timeline with enhanced preparation | Detailed advisory with supporting materials and proactive communication |
| Minor Security Improvement | Minimal disclosure as part of regular updates | Normal development cycle | Brief mention in release notes or security improvement summary |
Communication Templates
Standardized templates for consistent disclosure communication:
Security Advisory Template
# Security Advisory: [Vulnerability Identifier]
## Summary
[Brief description of the vulnerability in 1-2 sentences]
## Affected Systems
[List of affected models, versions, or systems]
## Severity
[Severity rating with brief explanation]
## Description
[Detailed description of the vulnerability without enabling exploitation]
## Impact
[Clear explanation of potential security impact]
## Remediation
[Description of how the issue has been addressed]
## Mitigation
[Steps users should take, if any]
## Timeline
- **Reported**: [Date vulnerability was reported]
- **Validated**: [Date vulnerability was confirmed]
- **Remediated**: [Date fix was implemented]
- **Disclosed**: [Date of public disclosure]
## Acknowledgment
[Recognition of security researcher, based on preference]
## References
[Related information, if applicable]
Researcher Communication Template: Disclosure Coordination
Subject: Coordinating Disclosure for [Case ID]
Dear [Researcher Name],
Thank you for your vulnerability report regarding [brief description]. We're preparing for public disclosure of this issue and would like to coordinate with you on the following:
## Proposed Disclosure Timeline
- **Target Disclosure Date**: [Proposed date]
- **Advisory Publication**: [Date and platform]
- **Patch Availability**: [Date and access information]
## Recognition Preferences
Based on our previous discussion, we understand you prefer [researcher's preference]. Please confirm this is still accurate, or let us know if you'd prefer a different approach.
## Disclosure Content
We've attached a draft of the security advisory for your review. Please provide any feedback by [deadline date].
## Next Steps
1. Review the attached advisory draft
2. Confirm your recognition preferences
3. Let us know if the proposed timeline works for you
Please respond by [date] so we can finalize our disclosure plans.
Thank you again for your valuable contribution to our security.
Regards,
[Program Contact]
[Organization] Security Team
Implementation Guidance
Disclosure Program Implementation
Steps for establishing an effective disclosure process:
Policy Development
- Create comprehensive disclosure policy
- Obtain executive and legal approval
- Establish clear roles and responsibilities
- Develop supporting documentation
Process Implementation
- Develop detailed process workflows
- Create supporting templates
- Establish tracking mechanisms
- Train relevant team members
Communication Framework
- Develop communication templates
- Establish approval workflows
- Create stakeholder mapping
- Identify communication channels
Measurement and Improvement
- Define process metrics
- Establish review mechanisms
- Create feedback loops
- Implement continuous improvement
Common Disclosure Challenges
Strategies for addressing frequent disclosure issues:
| Challenge | Prevention Approach | Resolution Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Timeline Disagreements | Clear expectation setting, policy transparency | Open dialogue, flexible timeline adjustment, compromise |
| Detail Level Conflicts | Early discussion of disclosure approach | Collaborative review, compromise solutions, phased disclosure |
| Premature Disclosure | Clear policy, researcher engagement | Rapid response, accelerated disclosure, damage limitation |
| Coordinated Disclosure Complexity | Early stakeholder identification, clear processes | Designated coordinator, regular synchronization, clear ownership |
| Legal Concerns | Comprehensive legal review, clear safe harbor | Legal consultation, risk assessment, managed transparency |
Disclosure Metrics and Improvement
Measuring and enhancing disclosure processes:
| Metric Category | Example Metrics | Improvement Application | Target Setting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeline Performance | Average time to disclosure, remediation time variance | Process efficiency enhancement, resource allocation | Based on severity and industry standards |
| Stakeholder Satisfaction | Researcher satisfaction ratings, internal team feedback | Process refinement, communication improvement | Continuous improvement targets |
| Process Compliance | Policy adherence rate, documentation completeness | Training focus, process simplification | High compliance with critical elements |
| Disclosure Effectiveness | Vulnerability reoccurrence rate, community feedback | Security enhancement, disclosure approach refinement | Decreasing reoccurrence, positive perception |
For detailed implementation guidance, templates, and practical examples, refer to the associated documentation in this bounty program framework section.