Re: [Xen-devel] Security vulnerability process, and CVE-2012-0217

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 02.07.12 at 15:58, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pre-disclosure might be appropriate for projects whose downstreams are
> generally software providers (e.g. Linux distros) but the high
> proportion of Xen's immediate downstreams who are service providers
> makes the balance somewhat different. In the case where you have a high
> proportion of downstreams who are service providers the inherent
> unfairness of pre-disclosure lists amplified since membership of the
> pre-disclosure list allows those service providers to begin deploying
> the fix without breaching the embargo, which is even more of an
> advantage than just knowing about the issue and being able to prepare an
> update for your users.

But if a service provider takes on the extra effort to be an
immediate downstream, wouldn't it be fair to give it the
advantage over those who consume distros? (Of course, I'd
personally still want to give less of an advantage to those who
don't contribute back, but I realize that this is impossible to
implement in a reasonable way.)

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel