From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261437AbVAMUui (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:50:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261438AbVAMUsi (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:48:38 -0500 Received: from grendel.firewall.com ([66.28.58.176]:48033 "EHLO grendel.firewall.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261383AbVAMUoS (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:44:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:44:15 +0100 From: Marek Habersack To: Alan Cox Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , Chris Wright , akpm@osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: thoughts on kernel security issues Message-ID: <20050113204415.GF24970@beowulf.thanes.org> Reply-To: grendel@caudium.net References: <20050112094807.K24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> <20050112185133.GA10687@kroah.com> <20050112161227.GF32024@logos.cnet> <20050112174203.GA691@logos.cnet> <1105627541.4624.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050113194246.GC24970@beowulf.thanes.org> <1105643984.5193.95.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1105643984.5193.95.camel@localhost.localdomain> Organization: I just... X-GPG-Fingerprint: 0F0B 21EE 7145 AA2A 3BF6 6D29 AB7F 74F4 621F E6EA X-message-flag: Outlook - A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:19:45PM +0000, Alan Cox scribbled: > On Iau, 2005-01-13 at 19:42, Marek Habersack wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:36:27PM +0000, Alan Cox scribbled: > > > We cannot do this without the reporters permission. Often we get > > I think I don't understand that. A reporter doesn't "own" the bug - not= the > > copyright, not the code, so how come they can own the fix/report? >=20 > They own the report. Who owns it is kind of irrelevant. If we publish it > when they don't want it published then next time they'll send it to > full-disclosure or worse still just share an exploit with the bad guys. > So unless we get really stoopid requests we try not to annoy people - > hole reporting is a volunatry activity Sounds a bit backwards to me. It's like surrendering to a guy who attacks y= ou on the street "because he's got a knife and I don't". There is some sense in it, but that way you're putting yourself in a position of a victim. The reporters... ok, they own the report, but do they own the information? > > > material that even the list isn't allowed to directly see only by > > > contacting the relevant bodies directly as well. The list then just > > > serves as a "foo should have told you about issue X" notification. > > This sounds crazy. I understand that this may happen with proprietary > > software, or software that is made/supported by a company but otherwise= opensource > > (like OpenOffice, for instance), but the kernel? >=20 > Its not uncommon. Not all security bodies (especially government > security agencies) trust vendor-sec directly, only some members on the > basis of their own private auditing/background checks. So it sounds that we, the men-in-the-crowd are really left out in the crowd, people who are affected the most by the issues. Since the vendors are not affected by the bugs (playing a devil's advocate here), since they fix them for their machines as they appear, way before they get public. best regards, marek --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB5t2fq3909GIf5uoRAoxvAJ4pglnIa2qzqI6z8Evh2/I9n9bM5wCdFnpU +VcWO77idxsSONqZME2eGB8= =8iOj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF--