| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel updatesStable kernel updatesPosted Aug 13, 2010 23:24 UTC (Fri) by spender (subscriber, #23067)Parent article: Stable kernel updates
There's also http://grsecurity.net/~spender/64bit_dos.c
see: 52423b90e1f5b1bdbbcc6e32f4d37ada29b790c4
CVE to vulnerability ratio is currently 0.
How can anyone seriously trust the vendor kernels when upstream won't be honest about the changes they're committing? If you're not using the latest kernel.org kernel, you're only getting a fraction of the vulnerability fixes that should be backported.
-Brad
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 15:47 UTC (Sat) by mikachu (guest, #5333) [Link]
And why was it reported to ted privately instead of lkml and/or security@kernel.org? (According to the .c file comments). Why don't the comments link to the commit in grsec that fixes it, or indeed any pointer at all that would be helpful instead of just trolling?
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 18:39 UTC (Sat) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]
You wanted a helpful commit message? You must be one of those fringe security leaches [sic] that just can't understand that a bug is a bug and that the fix is the disclosure! Look through our 1.5MB patch -- it's all you need.
If it's not good enough you can pay for Enterprise Linux (tm) support where we'll pay someone to assume my responsibility.
The community reached consensus over a year ago that this is perfectly acceptable, why do you have a problem with it?
-Brad
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 19:44 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Because you were the one making a huge song and dance about it being unacceptable to act that way, so if anyone could be expected to act differently, it would be you?
(Of course, maybe it's simply unacceptable except *if* it's you. I don't believe you changed your mind, because you still make such a bloody noise in the LWN comments to virtually every stable kernel release, in an apparent effort to eliminate all collegiality whatsoever from the commenting here and make it all viciously adversarial. Thanks heaps.)
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 19, 2010 21:28 UTC (Thu) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
"If you're not using the latest kernel.org kernel, you're only getting a fraction of the vulnerability fixes that should be backported."
It would be nice to have this statement either validated, or refuted. Which vendors are vulnerable because they have not backported a vulnerability fix, because it isn't disclosed as such in the commit log? It must be many if only "a fraction" of such commits are backported.
|
|
||||||||||||