Create a vulnerability-disclosure channel that researchers can actually use

Publishing a security email address is not enough if reports enter an ordinary support queue, lose attachments, expose a researcher, or close without reaching someone who owns the affected technology. Vulnerability disclosure requires an end-to-end handling process.

What NIST recommends

Source fact: NIST SP 800-216 explains that receiving reports about suspected security vulnerabilities is an important way for developers and service providers to learn about issues. Formal processes to accept, assess, and manage those reports can help reduce known vulnerabilities.

Source fact: The publication provides recommendations for a federal vulnerability-disclosure framework, handling vulnerability reports, and communicating mitigation or remediation. It calls for a framework that supports local resolution with federal oversight and applies to software, hardware, and digital services under federal control.

Design the reporting and handling path together

DSE recommendation: obtain qualified legal review and define the systems in scope, accepted testing, prohibited activity, information requested, secure submission options, expected acknowledgement, communication approach, and public reporting channel. Do not promise authorization, safe harbor, payment, confidentiality, or a remediation deadline unless the organization has approved the exact language and can support it.

Route submissions to a monitored queue with primary and backup owners; test that spam filtering, attachment controls, and staff absence do not discard reports.

Acknowledge receipt and assign a tracking record without confirming a vulnerability before technical review.

Protect reporter identity, system details, exploit evidence, credentials, personal information, and communications according to need and obligation.

Triage scope, reproducibility, affected products and versions, exposure, impact, existing exploitation evidence, dependencies, and required coordination.

Assign technical and business owners for mitigation, remediation, validation, release, customer support, and communication.

Coordinate status updates, disclosure timing, closure, and retained evidence with the reporter and relevant stakeholders.

Make the program observable

DSE recommendation: measure acknowledgement time, time to technical ownership, validated and rejected reports, remediation status, reopened findings, overdue communication, and recurring root causes. Review whether product design, development, testing, deployment, update, or support processes should change. A fast closure count is not success if valid reports are dismissed or reporters stop communicating.

Applicability and limits

SP 800-216 is explicitly federal guidance. A private organization may adapt the lifecycle, but needs current legal advice for authorization boundaries, computer-access laws, safe-harbor language, privacy, records, export or sanctions issues, disclosure timing, and bounty terms. A vulnerability-disclosure policy is not automatically a paid bug-bounty program, and a report is not proof until it is evaluated.

Official reference

NIST SP 800-216 — federal vulnerability-disclosure framework and report-handling recommendations.