Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262559AbVAKA6X (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:58:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262721AbVAKA5p (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:57:45 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.200]:7976 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262608AbVAKApd convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:45:33 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=f2I/9dKIpCRfdJjpwmPB7CbdJQsiqKB98XcAWWvztjbvJ/l09bvUXGielKKjg0/npgTmFygdQ9laUzWDuKcK+VcWyHh4cHPn9jGaBxuVsSHlh3/7I7oMpWUt+PgJdGIt8XC9mSteMC8cSmhUjdMPQNNqT5mcUAI8VnhKC41vV7I= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:45:51 +0100 From: Diego Calleja To: "Barry K. Nathan" Cc: steve@rueb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Proper procedure for reporting possible security vulnerabilities? Message-Id: <20050111014551.7d5254b9.diegocg@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20050111001901.GA4378@ip68-4-98-123.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <41E2B181.3060009@rueb.com> <87d5wdhsxo.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <41E2F6B3.9060008@rueb.com> <20050110230827.4d13ae7b.diegocg@gmail.com> <20050111001901.GA4378@ip68-4-98-123.oc.oc.cox.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0rc (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 883 Lines: 18 El Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:19:01 -0800 "Barry K. Nathan" escribi?: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:08:27PM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote: > > They could have mailed to *THIS* mailing list, so anyone can make a patch. > > And abandon the whole idea of coordinated disclosure? That would put > anyone using vendor kernels at a disadvantage (there would be a time gap > between the vulnerability being public and the vendor kernel being > released -- which happened anyway with uselib() but which doesn't > *always* happen). Yes it wouldn't be "coordinated disclosure" but at least you'd get a patch instead of a public exploit. - 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/