Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 14:56:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Josh Bressers <bressers@...hat.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Closed list ----- Original Message ----- > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:09:08PM -0400, Josh Bressers wrote: > > I think this is suitable. The goal here is to ensure that a vendor is > > actually producing updates and aren't just a potential leak. > > OK, so do you propose that we subscribe Wind River, and wait for > MontaVista to setup something similar to these RSS feeds before we also > subscribe them? I'm OK with this action. > > A secondary goal behind requiring access to advisories and updates (not > just metainfo) would be to be able to draw the line between vendors and > companies that build their own Linux distros in house. The latter could > also publish an RSS feed showing how they update their packages, yet they > would not be a vendor to anyone other than themselves... On the other > hand, publishing updates without publishing the distro itself doesn't > make them more of a vendor to others. So to achieve this goal we'd > probably need to require the distro itself to be public (in at least one > form - e.g., Red Hat's .src.rpm's are sufficient), not just advisories > and updates. > > We may choose not to pursue this secondary goal now. > This one is a bit wonky. I'm not sure what the answer should be. I think we should refer to sanity and current list members for advice. I suspect if we have rules we try to follow 100%, they will be trivial to work around. After all, don't we all make our living making things do things they're not supposed to do? :) Thanks. -- JB
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.