From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261806AbVAMX3j (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:29:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261768AbVAMXSz (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:18:55 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:64481 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261806AbVAMXPS (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:15:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:14 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: Alan Cox Cc: Linus Torvalds , Dave Jones , Marek Habersack , Marcelo Tosatti , Greg KH , Chris Wright , akpm@osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: thoughts on kernel security issues Message-ID: <20050113151514.I24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20050112161227.GF32024@logos.cnet> <20050112174203.GA691@logos.cnet> <1105627541.4624.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050113194246.GC24970@beowulf.thanes.org> <20050113200308.GC3555@redhat.com> <1105644461.4644.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1105651504.4624.150.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1105651504.4624.150.camel@localhost.localdomain>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:25:07PM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > On Iau, 2005-01-13 at 21:03, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Alan Cox wrote: > > - no embargo, no rules, but "private" in the sense that it's supposed to > > be for kernel developers only or at least people who won't take > > advantage of it. > > > > _I_ think this is the one that makes sense. No hard rules, but private > > enough that people won't feel _guilty_ about reporting problems. Right > > now I sometimes get private email from people who don't want to point > > out some local DoS or similar, and that can certainly get lost in the > > flow. > > And also not passed on to vendors and other folks which is a pita and > this would fix > > > > - _short_ embargo, for kernel-only. I obviously believe that vendor-sec > > is whoring itself for security firms and vendors. I believe there would > > be a place for something with stricter rules on disclosure. > > Seems these two could be the same list with a bit of respect for users > wishes and common sense. I think they should be the same. I hope the draft security contact bits reflect that. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net