Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:20:04 -0700 From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: USBCreator D-Bus service On 04/22/2015 07:34 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > On 2015-04-22 08:50 PM, Tavis Ormandy wrote: >> 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. >> >> I wish you had spoken up during the previous discussion. It was my >> impression that embargoes for local privilege escalations were universally >> considered deprecated. > > Nonsense, embargoes for local or remote privilege escalations are still > considered to be high priority and should be handled with an embargo. Please note that this is Ubuntu/Canonical speaking for themselves and not on behalf of the entire distros list. -- Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993 Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
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.