| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel 2.6.25.10Stable kernel 2.6.25.10Posted Jul 3, 2008 17:51 UTC (Thu) by gregkh (subscriber, #8)In reply to: Stable kernel 2.6.25.10 by PaXTeam Parent article: Stable kernel 2.6.25.10
> if you really really want me to get involved in all this (i very much doubt > you do, but you can prove yourself now), start that thread yourself and CC > spender and me. Sure, email addresses to cc:? > > instead of witchhunting on vendor-sec > I'm confused, what do you mean by this? make the vendor-sec archives public and i'll explain. deal? ;) I have no control over vendor-sec archives. If you disagree with this policy, bring it up on vendor-sec, where it can be discussed and possibly changed.
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel 2.6.25.10 Posted Jul 3, 2008 18:09 UTC (Thu) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link] pageexec@freemail.hu (spender chose not to be CC'd in the end) > If you disagree with this policy, i don't agree with it (nor with the secrecy and corresponding unaccountability of other lists like the kernel security one) > bring it up on vendor-sec, where it can be discussed and possibly changed. it can be discussed, but it can't possibly be changed, and you know that full well. case in point, you guys decided against letting in individual researchers on vendor-sec. how could you possibly agree on opening up the same discussions these private researchers would have been privy to then? obviously you will never do that and there's no point in having fake discussions whose outcome has already been decided.
|
|||||||||||||