Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Mr. Magorium's Wunderbar Emporium


From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:49:13 -0400

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:53:06 EDT, Brad Spengler said:
"Congrats" Linus on screwing over all the vendors and every Linux user
by forcing disclosure of the bug before vendors could ship out updated
kernels.  Your patch applies well to their binary packages.

Poor Linus can't catch a break.  Just like 3 weeks ago some guy named
Brad Spengler was ripping him a new one:

  "(Really there should have been a CVE for the lack of 
  -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks instead of pretending the only problem 
  was /dev/net/tun.  As the commit to add it showed (and at least 10 other 
  commits to the kernel this weekend) lots of other code was affected, so 
  someone not applying a fix for a CVE mentioning only /dev/net/tun 
  because they don't have the code for /dev/net/tun compiled in, is going 
  to be missing out on a number of fixes)."

Of course, getting a CVE for that issue would have forced disclosure of the bug
too, quite possibly before the vendors were ready to ship updated kernels.
In general, you *can't* have both "flag fixes as security issues right up
front before vendors have a chance to backport" and "don't screw over the
vendors and users".

So how do you suggest that Linus could have handled this in a manner that
didn't screw over vendors and users?

Out of curiosity, did *you* did your due diligence and didn't release that
exploit until you had verified that all the vendors had updated kernels ready
to ship? :)

Attachment: _bin
Description:

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Current thread: