Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 06:57:23 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: handling of Linux kernel vulnerabilities (was: CVE request - Linux kernel: VFAT slab-based buffer overflow) Greg, Note that I am not even asking you to reconsider. I have little hope that you would, as you appeared to have a firm opinion on this. I merely mentioned this aspect, with no intent to prompt a discussion of it. That said, I've commented inline, just to clear up your confusion. Then, in the last paragraph I was actually asking you a question, which you commented on - thanks! It looks like I need to clarify it, which I did below as well. On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 10:12:53AM +0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:44:38AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > In my opinion, it'd be best if Linus, Greg, et al. would reconsider > > their approach. > > Reconsider just what specifically? I (and many others) would prefer that you post to oss-security (public) on the day that you commit a fix. You have not agreed to that. Instead, you have agreed to notify linux-distros (private) and ask them to delay notification to oss-security until some later time. This is not great because technically the issue is half-public at commit time. > You bring up a bunch of issues that > the distros need to consider, what can the Linux kernel security team do > differently? Post to oss-security on commit day. Optionally, also notify linux-distros a few days before the commit. > We were asked to notify the linux-distro list, This was an unfortunate fallback option, after you refused to notify the oss-security list. > and now we > will be doing that. Should we not and just go back to how things were > before? Assuming that you continue to refuse to notify oss-security, the rest of us in here need to discuss and then decide on whether to accept the fallback approach with going via linux-distros. We also need to discuss the specifics first, as the decision whether to accept this or not may depend on the specifics. > > Overall, I think we should bite the bullet and accept sko's > > notifications to linux-distros, with a grace period of up to 7 days. > > Whenever a distro is ready to release an update, they should be able to > > insist on doing so within another 1 day, even if the initially planned > > grace period would expire later. Would sko be OK with this? Greg? > > Again, I don't think anyone that is part of security@...nel.org minds > about having the issues publicized, after linux-distro has their time > to get things fixed and to their users. If the linux-distro people care > about that, that does not seem to be a security@...nel.org group issue, > right? Right, but since you previously refused to notify oss-security right away, I thought that you could possibly stipulate that you'd only keep notifying linux-distros if the linux-distros folks keep the issues from hitting oss-security for at least a certain amount of time, or at least until fixes are available (from at least one distro? from all?), or whatever. If you're fine with letting linux-distros decide on this fully on their own, and you would not stop notifying linux-distros if you deem that they fully-disclose the issues publicly "too soon", that's great (and logical)! Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ