Re: thoughts on kernel security issues

[Chris Wright]

* Florian Weimer (fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> * Chris Wright:
> 
> > This same discussion is taking place in a few forums.  Are you opposed to
> > creating a security contact point for the kernel for people to contact
> > with potential security issues?
> 
> Would this be anything but a secretary in front of vendor-sec?

Yes, it'd be the primary contact for handling kernel security issues.
Handling vendor coordination is only one piece of a handling security
issue.

> > http://www.wiretrip.net/rfp/policy.html
> >
> > Right now most things come in via 1) lkml, 2) maintainers, 3) vendor-sec.
> > It would be nice to have a more centralized place for all of this
> > information to help track it, make sure things don't fall through
> > the cracks, and make sure of timely fix and disclosure.
> 
> You mean, like issuing *security* *advisories*? *gasp*

Yes, although we're not even tracking things well, let alone advisories.

> I think this is an absolute must (and we are certainly not alone!),
> but this project does not depend on the way the initial initial
> contact is handled.
> 
> > +      If it is a security bug, please copy the Security Contact listed
> > +in the MAINTAINERS file.  They can help coordinate bugfix and disclosure.
> 
> If this is about delayed disclosure, a few more details are required,
> IMHO.  Otherwise, submitters will continue to use their
> well-established channels.  Most people hesitate before posting stuff
> they view sensitive to a mailing list.

Yes, that's the point of coordinating the fix _and_ the disclosure.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/