lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 13 Jan 2005 14:41:29 -0800 (PST)
FromLinus Torvalds <>
SubjectRe: thoughts on kernel security issues
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Iau, 2005-01-13 at 21:22, Linus Torvalds wrote:> > Are there advantages and upsides? Yes. Are there disadvantages?  
> > Indubitably. And anybody who disregards the disadvantages as "inevitable"
> > is not really interested in fixing the game.> > So the next time I find a remote root hole I should post an exploit
> example targetting kernel.org to the linux-kernel list ? Now where are
> you going to publish the fix - bk is down, kernel.org is down ...
> > Disclosre isn't quite as simple as you'd like.

This is like saying "somebody will do the bad thing, it might as well be 
me". I don't believe that is a basis for doing things right.

First off, I've tried to make it clear that while I believe in openness, 
my beliefs are not exclusive to anybody elses beliefs. I'd rather see 
shades of gray than absolute black-and-white.

Secondly, I'd much rather have the mindset where we try to minimize the
likelihood of a catastrophic failure. That includes having many
_different_ ways of gettign things out: Bk, tar-balls, email. Diversity is
a _fundamental_ security strength. It also includes having diversity in 
other areas, ie multiple architectures.

I see vendor-sec as trying to treat the symptoms. It's a "take two
aspirins, call me in the morning". And you seem to not even want to
discuss treating the disease - and vendor-sec is PART of the disease. It's
the drug that people get addicted to when they decided to treat the
symptoms.

I think Linux - just by the source being open - has one real treatmeant to 
one fundamental -cause- of insecurity, namely "we don't care, and we'll 
put our heads in the sane". Open source just doesn't allow that mentality.

And similarly, I think truly open disclosure is another fundamental 
-treatment-, in that it doesn't _allow_ the mentality that vendor-sec 
tends to instill in people.  Well, maybe not "treatment" per se: it's more 
like admitting you have a problem.

It's like alcoholism. Admitting you have a problem is the first step. 
vendor-sec is the band-aid that allows you to try to ignore the problem 
("I can handle it - I could stop any day").

		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