![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > That sounds a bit over-the-top to me, sorry. Maybe a bit pointed, but the question is: would a user perhaps want to know about a security fix a month earlier (knowing that bad people might guess at it too), or want the security fix a month later (knowing that the bad guys may well have known about the problem all the time _anyway_)? Being public is different from being known about. If vendor-sec knows about it, I don't find it at all unbelievable that some spam-virus writer might know about it too. > All of these are of exactly the same severity as the rlimit bug, > and nobody cares, nobody is hurt. The fact is, 99% of the time, nobody really does care. > The fuss over the rlimit problem occurred simply because some external > organisation chose to make a fuss over it. I agree. And if i thad been out in the open all the time, the fuss simply would not have been there. I'm a big believer in _total_ openness. Accept the fact that bugs will happen. Be open about them, and fix them as soon as possible. None of this cloak-and-dagger stuff. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||