On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Tiago Assumpcao wrote:Well, some people keep it secret and track it on vendor-sec or similar, hidden from us. But then when they are ready to announce it, they want our help to glorify their corrupt process when they finally deign to let us know. And that really irritates me. Umm. You're talking to _entirely_ the wrong person. The people who want to track security issues don't run my development kernels. They usually don't even run the _stable_ kernels. They tend to run the kernels from some commercial distribution, and usually one that is more than six months old as far as I - and other kernel developers - are concerned. IOW, when we fix security issues, it's simply not even appropriate or relevant to you. More importantly, when we fix them, your vendor probably won't have the fix for at least another week or two in most cases anyway. So ask yourself - what would happen if I actually made a big deal out of every bug we find that could possibly be a security issue. HONESTLY now! We'd basically be announcing a bug that (a) may not be relevant to you, but (b) _if_ it is relevant to you, you almost certainly won't actually have fixed packages until a week or two later available to you! Do you see? I would not actually be helping you. I'd be helping the people you want to protect against! Linus --
| Scott Preece | Re: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections |
| Luis R. Rodriguez | Re: [Announce] Linux-tiny project revival |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.23-rc1-mm2 |
| Dave Hansen | [PATCH 02/24] rearrange may_open() to be r/o friendly |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
