Full Disclosure: Re: Linux Kernel CIFS Vulnerability

[Marcus Meissner <meissner () suse de>]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:26:43PM +0200, Thierry Zoller wrote:
> > The correct wording is "no advisory was released yet".
> An exception to the rule? The  question is why? If fefe wouldn't
> have pointed it out there would have  been  no  advisory,
> like  the 100 other silently fixed security bugs that even
> those that backport don't catch.
>
> There is a clear statement from the Kernelhacker groups on this
> situation, and it is *not* positive, so why make it look like
> those that complain just do it at the wrong point in time.

> again see :
> http://lwn.net/Articles/285438/
> http://lwn.net/Articles/286263/
> http://lwn.net/Articles/287339/
> http://lwn.net/Articles/288473/
>
> and hundrets of others.
I think we have brought this up to the kernel guys often already
without much effect ...  and I am aware of above posts.

This is Opensource, if the original authors don't provide security
guidance, someone else can easily step up and do it, like Brad, or Fefe,
or whoever else.

Even we as Linux distributors should probably set some people up to study the
.stable releases for such things.

Ciao, Marcus

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/