On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:19:22 -0800
Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 20:03 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this
> > conclusion. We implemented the policies for three releases. There
> > are significant problems with one release. This does not justify
> > the conclusion that the policies should be entirely repealed.
> It was brought to my attention that also current Fedora releases
> have problems with delaying important security updates. A fix for a
> remote code execution vulnerability in proftpd was only pushed to
> stable with a seven day delay:
> And it is not a theoretical threat, I know that servers in the
> nearby area have been exploited because of this vulnerability.
> Delaying such updates seems to be a very bad idea. Even in the
> unlikely case that the update was broken and made proftpd not start
> anymore, this is usually not as bad as having the system corrupted
> by an evil attacker.
Thanks for flagging this up.
I'm wondering if perhaps we should devise a system - maybe a sub-group
of proventesters - to ensure timely testing of security updates. wdyt?
Adam why should security updates wait at all ?
Do you fear some packager will flag as security updates that are not ?
Surely we can deal with such maintainer if that happens...
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York