mailing list archives
Re: [Full-disclosure] [Dailydave] Linux's unoff icial security-through-coverup policy
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb () redhat com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:41:19 -0400
On Thursday 17 July 2008 06:57:57 Dave Aitel wrote:
I think what Brad and the Pax Team are saying here is that:
1. We hold Linux to a higher standard than a company - we expect the
term "open source" to apply to more than just the source code.
2. For that reason, the community finds it discomforting when kernel
maintainers know that a patch has a serious security ramification and
essentially lie about it by neglecting to put that into the patch
comments. That's the sort of behavior we expect from a large commercial
Linux is a community which means that it needs people helping out when they
see something that no one else is doing. The community is not divided into
people inside and outside the community. Everyone can help. Also, security
reviews do not have to be confrontational in nature.
Instead of following each dot release with something written in a
condescending tone, why not start doing this in a more calm tone for each
kernel release with a little more explaination that not so technically savvy
people understand? Then take the step of submitting the bugs for CVE numbers.
Over time I think it would be a valuable reference for admins.
IOW, turn the negative that you see into something positive for the community.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: Linux's unofficial security-through-coverup policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 16)
Re: Linux's unofficial security-through-coverup policy A . L . M . Buxey (Jul 17)
Re: Linux's unofficial security-through-coverup policy Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman (Jul 17)
- Re: Linux's unofficial security-through-coverup policy, (continued)