Messages in this thread | | | From | pageexec@freemail ... | Date | Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:53:21 +0200 | Subject | Re: [stable] Linux 2.6.25.10 (resume) |
| |
On 23 Jul 2008 at 11:31, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, pageexec@freemail.hu wrote: > > it's apparently not true when foo = "kernel's security model", hence the > > suggested change to reflect reality. > > I heavily suggest using something else than "disclose". > > For the security community, "disclose" doesn't mean you have the source code > for the buggy code and the source code for the fix. It means you have the > information that it is a "foo = kernel's security model" bug, and a > description of the consequences of the bug for foo (the security model). > > This is NOT what "disclose" means for the Linux kernel, right now. Here, > "disclose" means "you know there is a bug, you have the code, you have the > bug fix". But you don't know that "foo = kernel's security bug", or the > consequences of the bug for the security model.
i think you misunderstood the whole thread here ;). we were explicitly talking about bugs where the kernel devs *knew* they were fixing one with an impact on security yet they chose not to say so.
determining whether a bug is a security one is a whole different kettle of fish, that was not the topic here at all.
IOW, Documentation/SecurityBugs talks about bugs where the security impact is known, not about bugs in general where such determination has yet to be done.
> So just use another word, or properly qualify WHAT is going to be disclosed, > (and in this case, WHAT is not going to be *usually* disclosed).
| |