[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DA47197.7070809@mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 05:36:55 -1000
From: akuster <akuster@...sta.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Josh Bressers <bressers@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Closed list
On 04/11/2011 09:57 AM, Josh Bressers wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> Postponed. I'd like to see any support for you getting onto the Linux
>> distros security contacts list, with reasoning, or/and any other
>> suggestions on what to do in this case. Josh - what do you think (as
>> someone who advocated the setup of a vendor-sec replacement)?
>>
>
> My initial thought is that a vendor without public advisories is a
> liability.
Then we has been a liability to vendor-sec ever since we first got
accepted way-back-when. My apologies.
>
> I don't want to get into the politics of not publishing your advisories,
(I don't either)
> but at the same time, public information such as this is all we have to
> measure if a vendor is using the information at hand.
Agreed.
> I'm happy to draw a line in the sand and make public advisories a mandatory
> requirement. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. This is my personal
> opinion, other viewpoints are welcome.
So publicly available advisories are a requirement. What about access
to the patches?
Is there somewhere I can point my management to that defines these new
requirements or is this too soon?
Mahalo,
Armin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
