[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48BD8365.2060308@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:18:13 +0800
From: Pavel Labushev <p.labushev@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Port Randomization: New revision of our IETF
Internet-Draft
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu ?????:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:17:43 +0800, Pavel Labushev said:
>
>> "SECURITY PATCH tag on a fix" helps me to know that there is the problem
>> and I must consider the patch, check its correctness and maybe
>> test/backport/apply it to my production systems ASAP. Just as another
>> tags helps me to know that there are realiability and other issues I
>> must care about.
>
> OK, now s/security patch/silent data corruption/ and tell me what's *actually*
> different.
The consequences are actually and obviously different. Now, please, try
to figure out that by yourself. Forget about Linus' point. Pretend
you're system administrator and try to think like one.
> Wow, you still need to consider it, check it, test it, and deploy it.
Not exactly.
> Unless of course you don't give a shit about your data. But in that case,
> the security patch can probably be overlooked too.
Hint: the data can be backed up.
> That's Linus's point - if the patch is important enough to go into one of
> the -stable tree kernels, it's probably something you want to install, whether
> or not it's a security patch.
Whether or not so-called -stable kernels are always stable - is another
question. And not a last one - there are more.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists