[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: thoughts on kernel security issues

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
> > - _short_ embargo, for kernel-only. I obviously believe that vendor-sec
> > is whoring itself for security firms and vendors. I believe there would
> > be a place for something with stricter rules on disclosure.
> Seems these two could be the same list with a bit of respect for users
> wishes and common sense.

Possibly. On the other hand, I can well imagine that the list of
subscribers is different for the two cases. The same way I refuse to have
anything to do with vendor-sec, maybe somebody else refuses to honor even
a five-day rule, but would want to be on the "no rules, but let's be clear
that we're all good guys, not gray or black-hats.

Also, especially with a hard rule, there's just less confusion, I think,
if the two are separate. Otherwise you'd have to have strict Subject: line
rules or something - which basically means that they are separate lists

But hey, it's not even clear that both are needed. With a short enough
disclosure requirement, maybe people feel like the "five-day rule,
possible explicitly _relaxed_ by the original submitter" is sufficient.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.240 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site