> Rapid7 says it reported the two TeamCity vulnerabilities in mid-February, claiming JetBrains soon after suggested releasing patches for the flaws before publicly disclosing them.
So JetBrains wanted to have a patch ready before disclosing the vulnerability publicly. It seems they were working on it and were working with Rapid7. I am struggling to think how it would be better for users if an unpatched vulnerability is released before a patch is available. What's the thinking here, that users will take additional precautions to secure the application while they wait for a patch?
> Rapid7 spotted fresh patches for CVE-2024-27198 and CVE-2024-27199 on Monday, without a published security advisory and without telling the researchers.
Rapid7 reported the vulnerabilities mid-Feb. Jetbrains turned around with patches about 2 weeks later, and published them yesterday. The CVE was literally created yesterday. Isn't it a bit premature to claim "silence"?
They released patches without saying they were related to a vulnerability and without notifying Rapid7. That is the textbook definition of what a silent patch is.
I'm not sure how to reword it in another way that would help you understand that Jetbrains did what is called "silent patching".
Maybe this paragraph from the article makes it clear?
>Rapid7 claims that after more than a week of radio silence from JetBrains on the coordinated disclosure matter, Rapid7 spotted fresh patches for CVE-2024-27198 and CVE-2024-27199 on Monday, without a published security advisory and without telling the researchers.
That makes this whole thing fall under Rapid7's silent patching policy.
Above I linked to a blog post Jetbrains put out on March 3rd, on Sunday. It details the vulnerability. March 3rd is before March 4th, so it seems they did not silently patch anything but published the patch and details concurrently.
And this is the part Rapid7 presumably took issue with.
>At this point, we made a decision not to make a coordinated disclosure with Rapid7
As well as
>We published a blog post about the release. This blog post intentionally didn’t mention the security issues in detail
Which is presumably the blog post that Rapid7 saw, which triggered their silent patching policy.
Although, after reading all the blog posts (from Jetrbrains, and from Rapid7), I think this is a much more standard affair than The Reg tries to spin in its article.
> Rapid7 says it reported the two TeamCity vulnerabilities in mid-February, claiming JetBrains soon after suggested releasing patches for the flaws before publicly disclosing them.
So JetBrains wanted to have a patch ready before disclosing the vulnerability publicly. It seems they were working on it and were working with Rapid7. I am struggling to think how it would be better for users if an unpatched vulnerability is released before a patch is available. What's the thinking here, that users will take additional precautions to secure the application while they wait for a patch?