I'll throw in my James Bond culture here..
The rule should be based on the "need-to-know" rule.We should let people that need to know the information towards the goals we are setting for this list. The goal of this list is at this point to allow people to discuss solutions to security issues in order to fix them while not making XWiki unusable. I don't think it is at this point to inform "admins" of potential security issue (that should be another annoucement list).
So it should be about letting in people that prove they want to help. The lesser it seems they will help the more we need to trust them !
It's clearly a case by case basisI don't think we should worry about not having enough people in this list. Working on security issues is hard and requires dedication, so it's already a happy few list.
We'll recognize them very quickly. Ludovic Le 31/05/10 18:53, Caleb James DeLisle a écrit :
Vincent Massol wrote:On May 31, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:Vincent Massol wrote:On May 31, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Alex Busenius wrote:Hello, The new mailing list [email protected] was created. All core commiters will be on this list. This is *not* an announcement list, it is meant for technical discussions about security issues. However, everyone can write to this mailing list, e.g. to report security issues (mails will be reviewed by the administrator first). If somebody else is interested in contributing to discussions on that list, he or she should write a mail on the dev-list asking for access. If the commiters agree (meaning that nobody is -1 on it, similar to a proposal) this person will get access.We also need to define who can get access. IMO: - persons who have submitted security issues in jira - persons who've submitted security patches - persons who have been contributing to xwiki for a long timeThese seem like nice guidelines but must we disallow people who we all know will help the discussion because they don't meet the requirements? IMO we can't define what makes someone unsuitable for the list but will know them when we see them.It's much better to have a list of examples of what constitutes a valid request than not having it. This is useful not only for committers to vote but also for the person who ask so that he knows how to qualify. Otherwise voting is about thin air... and you're going to hurt people Caleb (+ generate unnecessary requests, votes and rejections). Take this example: I'm someone who has installed XE at my company. I want to be sure I know about security issues and I'm even ok to take part in the discussion about these issues. I sent a mail to the dev list asking to be on that list. Note that I have not sent any prior email to the list but I have participated (for ex) to other open source projects.I have no problem defining what the list is for and what it's not for. "This list is not here to provide information about exploits and how to deal with them, only ask to join if you wish to help" If this hypothetical admin is also a programmer and knows a lot about security patterns then we would be wise to let them in.How ar you going to reject me or accept me? And if you reject me you need to give me a reason. What reason will it be? As you can see you'll have to list the reasons anyway and it's much better to do it upfront (even if the list is not complete) than not. Also if you reject me I'll be offended. I'm not a script kid. I'm someone honest and serious. How dare you reject me! This is not a real open source project! ;)What if somebody fits all of the requirements but has a history of becoming bitter and publishing security info about projects. Then if we reject them they will be that much more angry because they fit all of the rules. What about somebody who gets on the list by meeting the qualifications then never sends anything, just (presumably) logging the discussion? One final thought is we're probably making a mountain out of a mole hill, regulating who sees the secret jira issues has never been much of a problem.Thanks -VincentAlso it seems that rules stop people from doing the right thing while people with bad intentions are usually more motivated and will thus find a way around the rule. My +1 is for a case by case basis. CalebWDYT? Thanks -VincentAlex On 05/26/2010 01:02 PM, Alex Busenius wrote:Hello devs, I propose to introduce a security mailing list ([email protected]) to discuss details of security issues. This list should be private, with only committers and trusted contributors having read and write access. Anyone who proved his good intentions on the dev-list and bug tracker should be able to get access to security-list through the usual vote procedure. The purpose of this list is to give a safe place to discuss details open security issues without giving all script kiddies in the world examples to write exploits. The discussions should be kept on this private list until the corresponding fix is released. WDYT? Alex_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
<<attachment: ludovic.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
