ArticlePloS one2024
Regulatory mechanism of vulnerability disclosure behavior considering security crowd-testing: An evolutionary game analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The security crowd-testing regulatory mechanism is a vital means to promote collaborative vulnerability disclosure. However, existing regulatory mechanisms have not considered multi-agent responsibility boundaries and stakeholders' conflicts of interest, leading to their dysfunction. Distinguishing from previous research on the motivations and constraints of ethical hacks' vulnerability disclosure behaviors from a legal perspective, this paper constructs an evolutionary game model of SRCs, security researchers, and the government from a managerial perspective to propose regulatory mechanisms promoting tripartite collaborative vulnerability disclosure. The results show that the higher the initial willingness of the three parties to choose the collaborative strategy, the faster the system evolves into a stable state. Regarding the government's incentive mechanism, establishing reward and punishment mechanisms based on effective thresholds is essential. However, it is worth noting that the government has an incentive to adopt such mechanisms only if it receives sufficient regulatory benefits. To further facilitate collaborative disclosure, Security Response Centers (SRC) should establish incentive mechanisms including punishment and trust mechanisms. Additionally, publicity and training mechanisms for security researchers should be introduced to reduce their revenue from illegal participation, which promotes the healthy development of security crowd-testing. These findings contribute to improving SRCs' service quality, guiding security researchers' legal participation, enhancing the government's regulatory effectiveness, and ultimately establishing a multi-party collaborative vulnerability disclosure system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.