Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:51:49 +0200 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Linux kernel CVEs not mentioned on oss-security On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Muhammed Mustapha Abiola wrote: > Isn't this exactly what Vendor-Sec tried to solve? No. Not even similar. vendor-sec was / linux-distros is solely about the subset of issues that are initially embargoed, but OTOH not limited to the Linux kernel. So there wasn't / isn't meant to be more than a slight overlap between issues handled on those lists vs. all Linux kernel security issues/fixes. Besides, Greg focuses on the problem that some ignore the stable kernels or the "curated and tested stream of fixes" that could be seen in there, whereas another concern mentioned earlier in the thread is that the stream is also incomplete because some security fixes are not marked as such and not CC'ed to stable. So that's two problems mentioned in the thread, but vendor-sec was not / linux-distros is not related to either. Alexander > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote: > > The rule for the kernel is, "if a distro/company/user is not following > > the stable kernel updates, they are on their own". I recommend either > > using the stable kernels, or paying for a company that knows what they > > are doing in this area and provides support (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) > > > > And if you try to argue "just tell us what needs to be fixed", well, we > > are, am, we are providing about 10-12 patches a day that people should > > be incorporating into their kernels. Why they ignore that curated and > > tested stream of fixes is beyond me...
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.