Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:39:04 -0500
From: Josh Bressers <>
Subject: Re: welcome

> > * Organized - Not a mishmash of undecided people.  Have clear goals and
> >     procedures.
> > 
> >     There will be a wiki that contains the static information with respect to
> >     how things are handled.  Some issues that will need deciding are:
> > 
> >     1) How are new members accepted
> >     2) When do we kick out unresponsive members
> >     3) How do we deal with people who develop bad attitudes
> This sounds good, except that I see no need to "kick out unresponsive
> members".  If they like to listen to our conversations in real time
> (rather than browse the archives) and maybe learn from them - this can
> only be good.  Of course, active contribution would be even better.
> So is this "kick out policy" an attempt to encourage contribution?..
> Or were you speaking of a vendor-sec equivalent - not this list, but
> perhaps yet another list to be created for the small-and-trusted part of
> the group?  If so, how would that differ from vendor-sec itself?   Would
> it differ in that any (trusted?) Open Source projects would be accepted,
> not just distribution "vendors"?

We can probably disregard the whole kick out bits.  That really would only
apply to a private list that deals with sensitive information.  I don't
think there is a benefit to creating a private list at this time, as
vendor-sec exists and is functional.

> > * Active - discuss flaws (not a bunch of sponges)
> > 
> >     We want a group that is responsive and active with respect to the handling
> >     of flaws.  There will always be a subset of members that don't care about
> >     a certain flaw and this is fine, but if someone is always silent, how are
> >     they a benefit?  Members should be encouraged to participate in
> >     discussions and analysis.
> The same comments apply here.
> Yes, we would like to see a lot of active members, but do we really need
> to kick out the sponges, would that be of benefit?

No, there isn't a benefit in this instance.  I do think that encouraging
everyone to contribute in some meaningful manner is a good goal.  Anytime
you have a list full of smart people, the new people are usually quite
intimidated and afraid to engage.  We need to be mindful of this.

> > * Educate - many open source groups suck at security
> > 
> >     Create several documents that are helpful to the open source community
> > 
> >     1) How to report a security flaw
> >     2) How to accept security reports from researchers
> >     3) Basic ideas behind having a security response team
> Right - all of this should go on the wiki, and any discussions may occur
> in here.

Yes.  I have some notes on this as well.  I've been pondering how best to
present this data for quite some time, and have unsuccessfully peddled a
presentation to several conferences..  I'll have to dig out my old notes
(which really means find them in the file ghetto that is my ~).

Thanks for the feedback.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ