Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:50:35 -0700
From: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...gle.com>
To: "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: USBCreator D-Bus service

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@...onical.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:04:23AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
>> Either way, it sounds weird to keep a low severity issue private.  Low
>> severity usually means not needing an embargo in the first place.  But I
>> guess it was the vendor's preference?
>
> In this case, no, Ubuntu would have preferred several days embargo for
> this issue. Hypothetically speaking, Monday would have been ideal, as
> we prefer to not release updates on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
>
> We treat local root escalation vulnerabilities with a high priority[1].

I wish you had spoken up during the previous discussion. It was my
impression that embargoes for local privilege escalations were universally
considered deprecated.

> Please do inform us privately of further local root escalations in the
> future, either via security@...ntu.com or filing "private security"
> bugs against the corresponding package in Launchpad.
>
> Thanks

Embargoes tend to make things worse, see your apport patch developed during
embargo or shellshock for examples. However, if you're sure, I'm willing to
do so for Ubuntu specific bugs in future.


> 1: Our priorities don't directly map to issue severities, but local root
> escalations are treated highly:
>
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/README#L215
>

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