[jacobsenscott]

Classifying bugs as security bugs is just theater - and any company or organization that tries to classify bugs that way is immature and hasn't put any thought into it.

First of all "security" is undefined. Second, nearly every bug can be be exploited in a malicious way, but that way is usually not easy to find. So should every bug be classified as a security bug?

Or should only bugs where a person can think of a way on the spot during triage to exploit that bug as a security bug? In that case only a small subset of your "security" bugs are classified as such.

It is meaningless in all cases.

[therealrootuser]

> nearly every bug can be be exploited in a malicious way This is a bit contextually dependent. "This widget is the wrong color" is probably not a security issue in most cases, unless the widget happens to be a traffic signal, in which case it is a major safety concern.

Even the line between "this is a bug" and "this is just a missing, incomplete, or poorly thought out feature" can get a bit blurry. At a certain point, many engineers get frustrated trying to pick apart the difference between all these ways of classifying the code they are writing and just want to get on with making the system work better.

[staticassertion]

> First of all "security" is undefined.

No it isn't. Security boundaries exist and are explicit. It isn't undefined at all. Going from user X to user Y without permission to do so is an explicit vulnerability.

The kernel has permissions boundaries. They are explicit. It is defined.

> Second, nearly every bug can be be exploited in a malicious way,

No they can't.

[ykonstant]

> "security"

Security is not a dirty word, Blackadder.

[JCattheATM]

> First of all "security" is undefined.

Nonsense.