[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302036752.3924.77.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:52:32 -0500
From: Jamie Strandboge <jamie@...onical.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Closed list
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 07:48 -0400, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:51 +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:42:37AM +0100, Mark J Cox wrote:
> > > >I've subscribed Mark. So we have two representatives for Red Hat (Mark
> > > >and Josh).
> > >
> > > Limiting a distro to two or three representatives is going to make things
> > > tricky for Red Hat; we have a rather large dedicated security response
> > > team (as we publish over 300 advisories a year across 70 product/versions
> > > and have a number of folks dealing with 'incoming' issues spread, and my
> > > team is dispersed across 9 different countries). If these representatives
> > > have been very active on v-s and oss-security is there a reason to limit?
> >
> > Similar for SUSE. We currently have 3 engineers rotating through the incident
> > manager role (and myself).
>
> Same for Ubuntu. Limiting membership to two representatives would mean a
> lot of email from the list is going to be forwarded to the other members
> of our security team. Although limiting membership may seem like a good
> idea to contain leaks, having to forward email to non-members because of
> an arbitrary limitation would surely defeat that goal.
I agree with Marc (and Marcus, Nico, et al). I was lucky enough to be on
vacation starting last Friday and 'missed my chance' to get signed up
before the others on my team.
While I'm not opposed to an initial stated limitation of 2 people per
vendor, I think perhaps the answer is simply what was initially stated
by Alexander: "For more than two persons per distro, the need has to be
explained". IMHO, I don't think that the vendors who have larger
security teams (and by extension larger software archives/numbers of
products) should necessarily have to arbitrarily limit their membership
to the new closed list.
While it would be possible for us to change our workflow to have only
two members on the list, in our case that:
* would create extra work for those two people
* would create opportunities for the non-members on our team to miss
important and time-sensitive emails in updates they are preparing (and
participating in the discussion). Eg, aforementioned vacation/sick or
being accidentally left out of a CC.
* wouldn't (ultimately) limit access to the information to the other
members of the team
In that spirit, I am a member of the Ubuntu security team and was a
vendor-sec member via the Ubuntu exploder. In Ubuntu, the security team
rotates triage of new issues on a weekly basis and internally discusses
and assigns open issues to the different members of the team (I imagine
other vendors operate similarly). For me to adequately participate in
this triage and actively participate in discussions around embargoed
issues that I am tasked with fixing, I am requesting membership to the
new list.
pub 4096R/CC559573 2010-09-30
Key fingerprint = 4C20 C06B 5D8B DE68 8854 D28A 51DB DC58 CC55 9573
uid Jamie Strandboge (Canonical Ltd) <jamie@...onical.com>
sub 4096R/4C8A9DA4 2010-09-30
Thank you for your consideration. :)
--
Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 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.
