[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54FDCEBD.5040206@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:47:57 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Another Python app (rhn-setup: rhnreg_ks) not
checking hostnames in certs properly CVE-2015-1777
This is off topic but anyways, I don't care if people repackage RHEL and
give it away/sell it, that's something the business model we have
explicitly takes into account, and indeed something we actively support
with groups that participate meaningfully in the open source community
(e.g. with the CentOS and Scientific Linux community).
If customers want features in RHEL asking on oss-security is not the way
to go about it, ask your TAM/GSS.
If vendors want features in their rebranded RHEL they can add them. I
have no clue why you would need broad agreement from the community
including Red Hat to add a feature to Oracle Linux.
If you lack the engineering talent to add this feature, then at least
with RHEL you can become a customer and get support (new features if
requested by enough customers obviously become more of a priority but I
can't make any promises obviously). Which leads back to the "ask your
TAM/GSS" point.
On 08/03/15 11:18 AM, John Haxby wrote:
>
>> On 7 Mar 2015, at 03:54, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/15 06:08 AM, John Haxby wrote:
>>> On 06/03/15 01:02, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>>>> Please contact your TAM/GSS with this request, it carries a lot
>>>> more impact if customers want something that we also want.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know "me too" isn't helpful, but I'm going to say "me too" anyway.
>>>
>>> It occurred to me that we could have a patch that has a global switch
>>> (eg a file in, say, /etc/sysconfig and a corresponding switch for
>>> individual applications) that switches on the correct behaviour. I
>>> know it's a bit of a mess, but that way people who don't care will
>>> continue in blissful ignorance and people that do care can do
>>> something about it.
>>
>> That would be one way. But why can't Oracle build it and open source it?
>> Oracle has a Linux distribution too I thought? Or do you need Red Hat
>> engineering to do it first? If so as I said, customer cases carry far
>> more weight than oss-security for feature requests.
>
>
> Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that Red Hat should do this first. I’m also sorry if this came across as antagonistic: my intention was to try to find a way forward that would be beneficial to us both and to everyone else.
>
> There is no reason at all why I should not do this, but I would rather do it with broad agreement. There is also absolutely no way this could be done as closed-source and I’m not sure why you think I could or would do that.
>
> If both Red Hat have customer requests then that would help everyone would it not?
>
> jch
>
>>
>>> jch
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
>> PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
>>
>
--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
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.
