Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:08:23 -0400 From: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Linux kernel: stack buffer overflow with controlled payload in get_options() function > Daniel, I think that's too much. I can't magically guess when someone is or isn't acting on behalf of their employer if they're not stating so and they're using a work email address for work-related stuff by pushing the view of their employer. I'm hardly the first person to note that and I don't buy into feigning misunderstanding when that's how it's interpreted particularly when it's common. I'm not going to post from daniel.micay@...perhead.co unless it's on behalf of Copperhead because that's the impression that it gives to many people, and I'm one of those people. Even if someone states they aren't speaking for their employer, they're still speaking as an employee if they do it from a work email address... When people post from @google.com I similarly consider that to be a statement from a Google employee. Not *on behalf of Google* but speaking as an employee of Google? Definitely. If that's not the intention there is an easy way to avoid that. > I just ask that we please refrain from lengthy threads on each and > ever > such (non-)issue. I will be pushing them from the (linux-)distros > list > to the public right away, if any more are brought to the private list. Sure, can simply link back to this annoying discussion for any future ones. I don't think it was completely unproductive though. And no I'm not going to be civil if someone feels like telling me I don't understand what verified / secure boot is but rather than definition built around the limitations of their product's current limitations.
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