.. | .. |
---|
63 | 63 | of the report are treated confidentially even after the embargo has been |
---|
64 | 64 | lifted, in perpetuity. |
---|
65 | 65 | |
---|
66 | | -Coordination |
---|
67 | | ------------- |
---|
| 66 | +Coordination with other groups |
---|
| 67 | +------------------------------ |
---|
68 | 68 | |
---|
69 | | -Fixes for sensitive bugs, such as those that might lead to privilege |
---|
70 | | -escalations, may need to be coordinated with the private |
---|
71 | | -<linux-distros@vs.openwall.org> mailing list so that distribution vendors |
---|
72 | | -are well prepared to issue a fixed kernel upon public disclosure of the |
---|
73 | | -upstream fix. Distros will need some time to test the proposed patch and |
---|
74 | | -will generally request at least a few days of embargo, and vendor update |
---|
75 | | -publication prefers to happen Tuesday through Thursday. When appropriate, |
---|
76 | | -the security team can assist with this coordination, or the reporter can |
---|
77 | | -include linux-distros from the start. In this case, remember to prefix |
---|
78 | | -the email Subject line with "[vs]" as described in the linux-distros wiki: |
---|
79 | | -<http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros#how-to-use-the-lists> |
---|
| 69 | +The kernel security team strongly recommends that reporters of potential |
---|
| 70 | +security issues NEVER contact the "linux-distros" mailing list until |
---|
| 71 | +AFTER discussing it with the kernel security team. Do not Cc: both |
---|
| 72 | +lists at once. You may contact the linux-distros mailing list after a |
---|
| 73 | +fix has been agreed on and you fully understand the requirements that |
---|
| 74 | +doing so will impose on you and the kernel community. |
---|
| 75 | + |
---|
| 76 | +The different lists have different goals and the linux-distros rules do |
---|
| 77 | +not contribute to actually fixing any potential security problems. |
---|
80 | 78 | |
---|
81 | 79 | CVE assignment |
---|
82 | 80 | -------------- |
---|
83 | 81 | |
---|
84 | | -The security team does not normally assign CVEs, nor do we require them |
---|
85 | | -for reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and |
---|
86 | | -may delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier |
---|
87 | | -assigned ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact the private |
---|
88 | | -linux-distros list, described above. When such a CVE identifier is known |
---|
89 | | -before a patch is provided, it is desirable to mention it in the commit |
---|
90 | | -message if the reporter agrees. |
---|
| 82 | +The security team does not assign CVEs, nor do we require them for |
---|
| 83 | +reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and may |
---|
| 84 | +delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier |
---|
| 85 | +assigned, they should find one by themselves, for example by contacting |
---|
| 86 | +MITRE directly. However under no circumstances will a patch inclusion |
---|
| 87 | +be delayed to wait for a CVE identifier to arrive. |
---|
91 | 88 | |
---|
92 | 89 | Non-disclosure agreements |
---|
93 | 90 | ------------------------- |
---|