On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 03:54 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback.
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:02:54PM -0500, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> > A week is a pretty short delay to prepare updates and perform the
> > necessary QA to get an issue out on time. Why are you pushing to get
> > maximum reduced?
> Why shorter embargo periods are preferable: vendors who are ready to
> push out their updates first don't have to sit on those updates waiting
> for others, users get their fixes sooner, the potential for leaks (or
> rediscovery) and exploit development in the wild before a fix is out is
> reduced, the potential for a vendor inadvertently releasing before the
> CRD is reduced (and in case this happens anyway, other vendors are
> likely "more ready" by that time since they knew the CRD was sooner),
> fewer embargoed issues are being tracked at the same time (less work,
> lower risk of errors).
This means vendors will be keeping information about the vulnerability
private until they are confident they are able to release within a week,
at which point they will then share the information with other vendors
who will scramble to get their updates ready.
As a distro, I now have two choices: I sit on vulnerabilities until our
own QA and testing is done, at which point I send them to the list and
hope that 7 days is enough for everyone else, or I simply stop using the
list for anything that's more than trivial and contact other vendors
> Why 7-11 days: a few issues were recently handled within 7 days fine -
> such as the sudo issue (easy fix provided by upstream and not needing
> much QA) and the Linux kernel /proc//mem issue (vendors had to
> hurry up because the issue was mostly public).
Yes, those are two excellent examples of basically one line fixes where
a week was sufficient to publish updates. I don't think they should be
used as a reference to determine what an acceptable delay is.
> So this may be realistic
> at least as a target (hence my wiki page edit) or maybe also as the
> maximum (hence my proposal). Additionally, the original maximum of 14
> days may be seen as potentially including the extra days needed based
> on day-of-week: it is one week normal + some days from the other week
> when needed by day-of-week. So maybe me trying to meet the reality
> (seen on a few occasions) by extending this to 14-19 days was wrong, and
> I instead should have proposed 7-11 days. Hence the belated proposal.
For us, 7-11 is too short for certain complexe issues. 14-19 is a
reasonable delay to backport patches, perform adequate QA and publish.
> Why me: I feel that it's my duty as list admin to propose the smallest
> maximum embargo period that list members might be willing and able to
> Why I am making this proposal now: this is triggered by a certain
> off-list discussion I just had; unfortunately, the other party does not
> permit me to post more about it. However, as I wrote above, I feel that
> I have good reasons to give this proposal a try (see if it's acceptable
> or not) regardless of what triggered these thoughts now.
> > Reducing the maximum will just result in having everyone miss the
> > embargo date and putting users at risk.
> It's not that simple.
> Not "everyone" will miss the CRD. Clearly, if some vendors on the list
> are comfortable with a shorter embargo they either expect to meet the
> CRD or find the issues for which they miss the CRD not important enough
> to fix before CRD anyway.
Or, they have waited until they were ready before telling everyone else
about it simply to adhere to the new list rules.
> I already provided some answers to "why" above, and here's one more: the
> change may also result in vendors' processes being adjusted to meet the
> faster pace. I am unsure to which extent this is positive overall,
> though (considering that those changes may have side-effects).
This will result in issues becoming public before everyone's updates are
ready to be published, nothing more.