The cybersecurity industry loves to pat itself on the back for "responsible disclosure." We've built an entire ethical framework around the noble idea that researchers should quietly report vulnerabilities to vendors, giving them time to patch before going public. It's a beautiful theory that makes everyone feel good about doing the right thing.
Here's the problem: it's built on a fantasy.
The recent VMware ESXi case proves what many of us have suspected but been afraid to say out loud. While researchers dutifully follow the responsible disclosure playbook, sophisticated attackers are already weaponizing the same vulnerabilities. The system we've created to protect users is actually extending their exposure to active exploitation.
The math is brutal and undeniable: VMware's ESXi zero-days were likely being exploited in the wild for over a year before Broadcom disclosed them in March 2025. Chinese-speaking threat actors had developed a sophisticated toolkit that chained three vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-22226, CVE-2025-22224, and CVE-2025-22225) into a VM escape capable of compromising entire hypervisor infrastructures. PDB paths in their exploit binaries show development dates as early as February 2024.
This isn't just another "attackers got there first" story. This is evidence of a systematic failure in how we think about disclosure timelines and who they actually serve.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Zero-Day Economics
The VMware case exposes something the cybersecurity establishment doesn't want to acknowledge: there are multiple discovery pipelines operating simultaneously, and the legitimate research community is often the slowest.
Nation-state actors and sophisticated criminal groups don't follow responsible disclosure protocols. They don't file CVE requests or wait for vendor patch cycles. When they find a vulnerability, they weaponize it immediately and keep it operational for as long as possible. The Huntress analysis of the VMware toolkit shows exactly this approach: a modular framework designed for sustained exploitation across multiple ESXi versions.
Meanwhile, legitimate researchers who discover the same vulnerabilities face pressure to stay quiet during lengthy vendor remediation processes. The result? A system where attackers get maximum exploitation time while defenders get minimum preparation time.
Consider the timeline: if these VMware vulnerabilities were being exploited since February 2024, every organization running ESXi was unknowingly vulnerable for at least 13 months. How many environments were compromised during that window? How many lateral movements succeeded? How much data was exfiltrated while we maintained the polite fiction that keeping quiet was protecting users?
The toolkit described by Huntress wasn't some proof-of-concept. It was production-grade malware with sophisticated components like MAESTRO for exploit coordination, MyDriver.sys for kernel-level access, and VSOCKpuppet for persistent backdoor access. This level of development requires significant investment and suggests long-term operational planning.
The Vendor Protection Racket
Let's be honest about what responsible disclosure actually protects: vendor reputation and market position.
When researchers agree to embargo periods, they're essentially providing free security consulting while allowing vendors to control the narrative timeline. Vendors get months or sometimes years to develop patches, coordinate communications, and minimize business impact. During this period, they continue selling potentially vulnerable products to customers who have no idea they're at risk.
The VMware case is particularly egregious because hypervisor vulnerabilities affect entire virtualized infrastructures. A single ESXi compromise can lead to complete environment takeover, yet organizations had no visibility into this risk while attackers were actively exploiting it. They couldn't make informed decisions about additional monitoring, network segmentation, or alternative virtualization strategies because they didn't know the risk existed.
This information asymmetry isn't an accident. It's a feature of the current system that prioritizes vendor convenience over user security. The argument that disclosure would lead to widespread exploitation falls apart when sophisticated actors are already exploiting the vulnerabilities at scale.
What we're really protecting is the vendor's ability to patch on their schedule while maintaining plausible deniability about active exploitation. It's a form of security theater that makes everyone feel responsible while leaving users exposed.
The False Choice of Binary Disclosure
The security community has convinced itself that we face a binary choice: immediate full disclosure that leads to chaos, or responsible disclosure that protects users. This is a false dichotomy that ignores more nuanced approaches.
What if instead of hiding vulnerabilities from defenders, we focused on rapidly improving their detection and mitigation capabilities? The VMware attackers used specific techniques: HGFS for information leakage, VMCI for memory corruption, and kernel-level shellcode execution. These behavioral patterns are detectable, but only if security teams know to look for them.
A disclosure model focused on defensive empowerment would immediately share attack patterns, IOCs, and detection logic while working on patches. This approach recognizes that sophisticated attackers already have the vulnerability details and focuses on leveling the playing field for defenders.
The current system does the opposite. It ensures that attackers maintain their information advan
Detection Over Perfection
The Huntress analysis reveals something crucial: this wasn't silent, undetectable exploitation. The toolkit left clear artifacts including specific PDB paths, predictable file structures, and network communication patterns over VSOCK. Organizations with mature threat hunting capabilities and knowledge of what to look for could have detected this activity.
But they couldn't look for what they didn't know existed.
This highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern security operations work. We don't need perfect patches to improve security posture. We need information about attack patterns, behavioral indicators, and exploitation techniques. A world where organizations knew to monitor for unusual VMCI activity and VSOCK communications would have been safer than the world we created where they operated in complete ignorance.
The toolkit's modular design also suggests that similar techniques are likely being used against other hypervisor platforms. Instead of keeping this knowledge locked away, we should be sharing defensive patterns that help security teams identify VM escape attempts regardless of the specific vulnerabilities involved.
The security industry's obsession with preventing all exploitation has blinded us to the reality that informed defenders are better than ignorant ones, even when perfect patches aren't available.
The Counterargument: Chaos and Script Kiddies
Critics of immediate disclosure raise valid concerns about weaponization by less sophisticated actors. The argument goes that while nation-state groups will find and exploit vulnerabilities regardless, public disclosure enables script kiddies and commodity malware to incorporate exploits into widespread campaigns.
This concern isn't entirely wrong. Public disclosure does lower the barrier to entry for exploitation. However, the VMware case suggests we're optimizing for the wrong threat model.
The most damaging exploitation isn't coming from opportunistic attackers using public exploits. It's coming from sophisticated groups operating custom toolkits over extended periods. These actors already have access to the vulnerabilities and are maximizing their impact while we maintain information embargos.
Meanwhile, the defensive benefits of disclosure, rapid detection development, and informed risk management are being withheld from the organizations that need them most. We're protecting against script kiddie exploitation while enabling nation-state persistence.
The mathematical reality is that sophisticated attackers are already achieving maximum exploitation impact during embargo periods. The additional damage from wider disclosure is marginal compared to the defensive improvements that informed organizations could implement.
A New Model: Rapid Defensive Disclosure
Instead of the current system that prioritizes vendor convenience, we need disclosure practices designed around defender empowerment. This means sharing attack patterns, detection logic, and mitigation strategies as soon as they're identified, regardless of patch availability.
Organizations should know immediately when they're potentially running compromised infrastructure. They should have access to hunting queries, behavioral detections, and network signatures that can identify ongoing exploitation. They should be able to make informed risk decisions about additional monitoring, network segmentation, and incident response preparation.
This doesn't mean abandoning coordination with vendors or ignoring the complexity of patch development. It means refusing to maintain information asymmetries that favor attackers over defenders.
For the VMware case specifically, immediate disclosure of the exploit patterns would have enabled organizations to detect the sophisticated toolkit that was operating in their environments. Even without patches, they could have implemented additional VMCI monitoring, VSOCK inspection, and VM behavior analysis.
The current system traded away these defensive opportunities to maintain the illusion that keeping secrets keeps users safe. The result was over a year of undetected compromises while we all felt good about following responsible disclosure protocols.
Beyond the Sacred Cow
The cybersecurity industry needs to abandon its faith-based approach to responsible disclosure and start making evidence-based decisions about information sharing. The VMware case provides clear evidence that our current model is failing the users it claims to protect.
We're not actually choosing between security and chaos. We're choosing between informed defenders operating with full knowledge of active threats, and ignorant defenders operating blind while attackers maximize their advantage.
The sacred cow of responsible disclosure has become a liability that extends attacker dwell time while constraining defensive response. It's time to build disclosure practices that prioritize user security over vendor convenience, defensive empowerment over attacker advantage, and evidence over ideology.
The next time we discover a critical vulnerability, we should ask ourselves: are we protecting users, or are we protecting the comfortable fiction that keeping secrets makes anyone safer?
Suggested Tags: cybersecurity, responsible-disclosure, incident-response, threat-hunting, vmware
Top comments (0)