[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <uu9en0$oga$1@ciao.gmane.io>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:30:25 -0000 (UTC)
From: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to ssh server compromise
On 2024-03-30, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 2024-03-30 11:37, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
>> On 2024-03-30, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>>> That is the problem, having more eyes on a 0-day also means more eyes from
>>> malicious entities. Neither having an embargo nor immediately posting publicly
>>> are ideal solutions. There needs to be a compromise, and while I understand and
>>> respect your point of view, I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on what the
>>> acceptable compromise should be.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but your acceptable compromise *must* include Canonical having
>> advance knowledge of backdoors, correct?
>
> Not necessarily.
Okay, you could unsubscribe from distros to help make the embargo stronger? :)
> For example, I don't have access to embargoed Chrome 0-days
> before the updates come out, and a lot of other folks don't either. Should all
> Chrome 0-days be public before the updates are available? Are you advocating for
> this?
Yes! If you have knowledge of *any* software that is backdoored or
compromised or is being actively exploited with a 0day, I'm advocating
-- please -- for you to make that public.
This applies to literally *any* software, hardware or other product.
>
>>
>> There are a lot of other users and organizations out there, and I think
>> most of them also like having some agency, I know I do. If our roles
>> were reversed -- my organization was on distros and yours was not -- do
>> you think you would still be arguing for embargoes on backdoors?
>
> I'm not necessarily arguing for embargoes on backdoors, I'm saying that posting
> publicly about it before even knowing what it was would have resulted in a worse
> outcome. That's my opinion, you may think it's a wrong.
Yes, I think it's wrong.
>
> Perhaps the question here is why isn't your organization on one of the multitude
> of places where this issue was discussed in private for a few hours, and where
> it was decided that this should be public?
I think maybe you're saying that if I was on the list, then I would like
embargoes too!
It's definitely better for the organizations on the list, no question.
As you know, I was a distros and vendor-sec member for years, so I do
know how they work :)
Tavis.
--
_o) $ lynx lock.cmpxchg8b.com
/\\ _o) _o) $ finger taviso@....org
_\_V _( ) _( ) @taviso
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.
