Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:21:04 +0000
From: Benji <>
Subject: Re: CVE request - Linux kernel: VFAT slab-based buffer overflow

My response was directly due to this line for known security patches
"That's not going to happen, and you know that, to do so would be totally
irresponsible of us and directly harm your users."

As I have said to someone else already who queried my comment, as we have
seen before, hiding patches does not protect users and thus I'm not sure
where the 'directly harm your users' comes into this. I'd be interested to
hear how you think making security patches obvious, when they are obviously
marked as such, is going to cause harm or danger to users.


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Greg KH <> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:59:17PM +0000, Benji wrote:
> > Ah the logic. Open source software, hidden secret hush hush no public
> > reporting patches.
> Every single patch we make to the kernel is public, it is up to you to
> determine if you feel it is a "security fix" or not.  And to do so is a
> non-trivial task, something that I sure don't want to be responsible for
> trying to do.  And since no one else has ever stepped up to want to do
> it either, there's not much more that can be done.
> Are you willing to do it?
> greg k-h

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.