oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Closed list
From: Solar Designer <solar () openwall com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 02:38:56 +0400
Dan, Thank you for your comments! I had them in mind when I made the final determination on the list that I've setup. Josh wrote:
Should we require members use a mail address from their vendor? Letting people use personal addresses creates an opportunity for people to remain on a list when they are no longer a part of a given vendor (it also makes it quite easy to know who represents a vendor).
"Good" employers, let alone non-commercial Open Source projects, don't remove e-mail addresses when a person leaves. Someone having an @debian.org address does not mean they're currently with Debian. On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 08:08:36PM -0400, Dan Rosenberg wrote:
Yes, I think this should be a requirement for a closed coordination list
Yet I decided to allow some personal e-mail addresses for now, for the reasons Mike has explained. It takes me extra time to verify that a person's non-vendor e-mail address is really "theirs", though.
(as opposed to the more relaxed option #2). In fact, I think membership to such a list should be restricted almost exclusively to distributions and downstream providers of third-party software. It obviously makes sense to have distro security teams on a list, since a vulnerability in project XYZ will need to be coordinated among all of the distros. However, most software projects only need access to information concerning their own project. There's no reason one software project should gain access to vulnerability information about a completely unrelated project, and restricting membership to achieve that will at least help minimize the leakage that went on with the previous list. In a nutshell, I think this list needs to decide what its purpose is. If it's for coordination for vulnerability disclosure, then its membership should be kept to those who actually need to do the coordination.
Right. So for now I setup a Linux distro security contacts list only, as a hopefully better alternative to the long yet incomplete CC lists that started to appear when vendor-sec ceased to exist.
If it's for private (or semi-private) discussion of potentially sensitive research, knowledge sharing, etc., then its membership should be expanded to include representation from software vendors and researchers.
Right, although I'm not sure about software vendors. I think there's usually just one non-distro software vendor for whom a given issue is relevant (the upstream), so it can simply be CC'ed. For example, on the old vendor-sec we had X and Samba, and I don't recall any discussion in which both participated at once. Alexander
Current thread:
- Re: Closed list, (continued)
- Re: Closed list Patrick J. Volkerding (Apr 03)
- Re: Closed list Marc Deslauriers (Apr 01)
- Re: Closed list Charles Blas (Apr 01)
- Re: Closed list Solar Designer (Apr 03)
- Re: Closed list Solar Designer (Apr 03)
- Re: Closed list Charles Blas (Apr 01)
- Re: Closed list Dan Rosenberg (Apr 01)
- Re: Closed list Josh Bressers (Apr 01)
- Re: Closed list Dan Rosenberg (Apr 01)
- Re: Closed list Mike O'Connor (Apr 02)
- Re: Closed list Solar Designer (Apr 03)
- Re: Closed list Solar Designer (Apr 03)
- Re: Closed list Yves-Alexis Perez (Apr 04)
- Re: Closed list Solar Designer (Apr 04)
- Re: Closed list Josh Bressers (Apr 01)
- Re: Closed list Matthias Andree (Apr 05)
- Re: Closed list Tim Zingelman (Apr 05)
- Re: Closed list Solar Designer (Apr 05)
- Re: Closed list Solar Designer (Apr 03)
- Re: Closed list Mike O'Connor (Apr 01)