[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADPF4OszZShcGb+x79UZQzBT3XONwNH6E970MVwrUdXyJDmiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:14:04 +0100
From: Muhammed Mustapha Abiola <1@...tapha.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Linux kernel CVEs not mentioned on oss-security
Isn't this exactly what Vendor-Sec tried to solve?
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:50:10PM +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> > On martedě 26 settembre 2017 09:32:14 CEST Greg KH wrote:
> > > > I guess this would be benefit for all.
> > >
> > > Define "all"
> >
> > You know, for example in Gentoo we are following the upstream releases.
> So
> > from time to time we stabilize a newer kernel that "syncs" with upstream.
> > This does not happen for non-rolling (release) distros that may want to
> patch/
> > backport the security fix.
>
> I understand the issue well, I talk to companies all the time about this :)
>
> The rule for the kernel is, "if a distro/company/user is not following
> the stable kernel updates, they are on their own". I recommend either
> using the stable kernels, or paying for a company that knows what they
> are doing in this area and provides support (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.)
>
> And if you try to argue "just tell us what needs to be fixed", well, we
> are, am, we are providing about 10-12 patches a day that people should
> be incorporating into their kernels. Why they ignore that curated and
> tested stream of fixes is beyond me...
>
> Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic here, sorry for the noise.
>
> Best of luck,
>
> greg k-h
>
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.
