linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] docs: clarify security-bugs disclosure policy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:15:31 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] docs: clarify security-bugs disclosure policy

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> If you want to be taken seriously then I think minimum you also need to
> - Give a GPG key for messages to the list

Oh, I don't want to be taken seriously by people who use gpg encrypted email.

It's garbage and should be shunned as such.

I keep quoting this:

   https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvbw9a/even-the-inventor-of-pgp-doesnt-use-pgp

and anybody who thinks pgp encrypted email is fine is a clown.

> - State what security is in place (encryption etc) to protect the list
>   itself

That could be stated, but it's worth noting the other rules.

If you have some long corrupt vendor disclosure period and are worried
about any good guys finding out (the bad guys probably already have
it), we're not the list for you anyway.

Keep your "we'll keep security problems under wraps so that they can
be exploited for a long time" emails to yourself, or send them to
/dev/null.

                   Linus