Large-scale vulnerability notifications (VNs) can help hosting provider organizations (HPOs) identify and remediate security vulnerabilities that attackers can exploit in data breaches or phishing campaigns. Previous VN studies have primarily focused on factors under the control of reporters, such as sender reputation, email formatting, and communication channels. Despite these efforts, remediation rates for vulnerability notifications continue to remain consistently low. This paper presents the first in-depth study of how HPOs process vulnerability notifications internally and what organizational and operational factors influence VN effectiveness. We examine the problem from a different perspective to provide the first detailed understanding of the reasons behind persistently low remediation rates. Instead of manipulating parameters of VN campaigns, we interview hosting providers directly, investigating how they handle vulnerability notifications and what factors may influence VN effectiveness, such as VN awareness and reachability, HPOs’ service models, and perceived security risks. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 HPOs across shared hosting and web development services, representing varied company sizes and operator roles. Our findings reveal practical insights on VN processing and abuse workflows. While some providers remain hard to reach due to complex infrastructures, most report routinely handling VNs. However, limited remediation often stems from strict responsibility boundaries, where web application issues are seen as the customer’s domain. Low hosting fees and high volumes of daily compromises further discourage both proactive and reactive measures. Our findings show that HPOs blame negligent website owners, and prior works on website owners confirms they often undervalue their sites or lack security know-how. This misalignment raises further concerns about the efficacy of current VN approaches and whether they can reliably prompt remedial action under the existing operational model.

Comprehensive and representative measurements are crucial to understand security and privacy risks on the Web. However, researchers have long been reluctant to investigate server-side vulnerabilities at scale, as this could harm servers, disrupt service, and cause financial damage. This can lead to operator backlash and problems in peer review, as the boundaries posed by the law, ethics, and operators’ stance towards security research are largely unclear.In this paper, we address this research gap and investigate the boundaries of server-side scanning (3S) on the Web. To that end, we devise five typical scenarios for 3S on the Web to obtain concrete practical guidance. We analyze qualitative data from 23 interviews with legal experts, using German law as a case study, members of Research Ethics Committees, and website and server operators to learn what types of 3S are considered acceptable and which behavior would cross a red line. To verify our findings, we further conduct an online survey with 119 operators.Our analysis of these different perspectives shows that the absence of judicial decisions and clear ethical guidelines poses challenges in overcoming the risks associated with 3S, despite a slight majority (57%) of operators having a positive stance towards such academic research throughout the interviews and the survey. As a first step to mitigate these challenges, we suggest best practices for future 3S research and a pre-registration process to provide a reliable and transparent environment for 3S-based research that reduces uncertainty for researchers and operators alike.

In recent years, semi-structured interviews gained more and more importance in cyber security research. Transcribing audio recordings of such interviews is a crucial step in qualitative data analysis, but it is also a work-intensive and time-consuming task. While outsourcing presents a common option, maintaining research quality requires precise transcriptions -- a task further compounded by technical jargon and established expressions in the research field. In this study, we compare different transcription services and evaluate their outcome quality within the context of cyber security. Our findings provide insights for researchers navigating the complex landscape of transcription services, offering informed choices to enhance the accuracy and validity of qualitative data analysis.