[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:06:52 +0200
From: Tomas Hoger <thoger@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Closed list
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:26:50 -0400 (EDT) R P Herrold wrote:
> > Given the aim to keep the subscriber list very limited, this
> > probably falls into a tentatively subscribed category too. AFAIK,
> > CentOS has rather few components that are not rebuilds of the RHEL
> > SRPMs, the question is how often a v-s info was useful in the past
> > in providing security updates for those extra packages.
>
> Thanks for the post furthering the marketing goals of your
> corporate master; perhaps the security goal of making sure the
> Linux server space is well-secured in a timely fashion was
> overlooked by you as you framed your thought
Damn, my corporatish evilness unveiled after all... ;)
The request was meant to be in the same spirit as Alexander's questions
to rPath or Frugalware folks to see if the membership provides the
expected benefits, and seemed natural given the specific development
mode used by CentOS. You're free to view it however you want, of
course.
> Seemingly (you mention 'AFAIK'), you do not follow the
> 'extras' archive, nor the 'testing' where extensions are
> found, past what Red Hat ships by default in its enterprise
> product
I certainly do not follow. I did check extras and centosplus though
and referred to them as those components that are not rebuilds. Not
many components there seemed to be an obvious candidates that can
benefit from v-s info, imo.
EOF
--
Tomas Hoger / Red Hat Security Response Team
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
