Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 09:00:40PM +, Liguori, Anthony wrote: I think this is a bit overkill. Hmm to clarify, this forces people to send info about 0 day exploits over the internet in cleartext. What do we get in return for sacrificing the privacy? A small convenience of not typing in 3 addresses? Many projects use private mailing lists for this purpose. True that some others do this but frankly I don't understand it. Maybe this tradeoff starts to make sense if the list of subscribers is large? Regards, Anthony Liguori From: Michael S. Tsirkin [m...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 10:53 AM To: Liguori, Anthony Cc: Peter Maydell; Anthony Liguori; qemu-devel; Stefan Hajnoczi; Andreas Färber Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 05:35:38PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I'll play around once I get the password. From what I've seen so far, I'm not sure it's the right server to use for security :( I did some more reseach and savannah does not seem to support any encryption for its lists: neither TLS nor PGP. This would mean that all communication has to be in the clear. I think that for this use, we would be better off with an option that can guarantee a measure of privacy. For now simply listing specific addresses and GPG keys looks like the only way. Makes sense? I would really like us to get an agreement on this so we can start making progress on harder issues such as agreeing on a security policy. The list now appears here https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo under the heading Below is a listing of all the public mailing lists on lists.nongnu.org. The list page https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-security also seems to even have a link to public archives - it's not live but its presence might scare people away. We definitely do not want this list to be public - it's so people who want to do the responsible disclosure process can get some response and possibly help. If someone just wants to go public there's always qemu-devel. I guess we can configure it to actually be non-public, but hiding information seems unlikely to be one of savannah's strong points. I know if I was asked to post sensitive information to such a list I would hesitate, which isn't the effect we are trying to achieve here. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:57:26PM +, Liguori, Anthony wrote: https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/admin/qemu-security Has been created but it will take 24-48 hours for Savannah to do it's thing. I'll send out the mailing list password to Michael and Peter once it is created. Regards, Anthony Liguori From: Michael S. Tsirkin [m...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:39 AM To: Peter Maydell Cc: Anthony Liguori; qemu-devel; Stefan Hajnoczi; Andreas Färber; Liguori, Anthony Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:24:45PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: On 17 April 2014 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Also I'd like a more explicit name, we don't want general security related discussions on that list. qemu-secal...@nongnu.org ? OK, so do we want to: (a) commit this patch as-is (b) set up the proposed mailing list? If (b), who has the admin rights to do that? I don't feel strongly either way. thanks -- PMM Way I see it, as long as it has the same people, it probably doesn't matter
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On 17 April 2014 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Also I'd like a more explicit name, we don't want general security related discussions on that list. qemu-secal...@nongnu.org ? OK, so do we want to: (a) commit this patch as-is (b) set up the proposed mailing list? If (b), who has the admin rights to do that? I don't feel strongly either way. thanks -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:24:45PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: On 17 April 2014 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Also I'd like a more explicit name, we don't want general security related discussions on that list. qemu-secal...@nongnu.org ? OK, so do we want to: (a) commit this patch as-is (b) set up the proposed mailing list? If (b), who has the admin rights to do that? I don't feel strongly either way. thanks -- PMM Way I see it, as long as it has the same people, it probably doesn't matter :) We can get around to creating a list if/when more people volunteer. I also think we want people to have the option to communicate with pgp. Some searches I found mailman patches for pgp support: http://non-gnu.uvt.nl/mailman-pgp-smime/ but without that, we really need to list individual people for now. -- MST
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:24:45PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: On 17 April 2014 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Also I'd like a more explicit name, we don't want general security related discussions on that list. qemu-secal...@nongnu.org ? OK, so do we want to: (a) commit this patch as-is (b) set up the proposed mailing list? If (b), who has the admin rights to do that? I don't feel strongly either way. Beyond just creating the mailing list and pointing to it in MAINTAINERS, IMHO it would be a good idea to be explicit about what QEMU's security handling process is. eg, say what the criteria are for someone to join the QEMU security mailing list, indicate what you aim for with maximum embargo times, how / where will issues be announced, what the historic patch backport policy is, etc. A few months back we documented this kind of stuff a bit more formally for libvirt: http://libvirt.org/securityprocess.html Also, at the suggestion/request of distro vendor security representatives, we started using a structured, machine readable document format for describing security issues. This has also helped us tracking down which historical branches are vulnerable. We use this to produce a web site listing all historic libvirt flaws, as well as for generating the text email announcement text and providing the raw XML for consumption by downstream vendors. eg so every issue is published in 3 formats: http://security.libvirt.org/2014/0001.txt http://security.libvirt.org/2014/0001.html http://security.libvirt.org/2014/0001.xml In future we aim to also be able to generate CVRF formatted XML doc, since that is a commonly used standard schema, but code for that isn't done yet. If QEMU wishes to re-use any of the scripts libvirt uses for handling these documents, they are all provided under the GPL: http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt-security-notice.git;a=tree (The XML doc for each issue gets added to that repo when the embargo is lifted, and a cron job updates security.libvirt.org from GIT hourly). Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
I'll play around once I get the password. From what I've seen so far, I'm not sure it's the right server to use for security :( The list now appears here https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo under the heading Below is a listing of all the public mailing lists on lists.nongnu.org. The list page https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-security also seems to even have a link to public archives - it's not live but its presence might scare people away. We definitely do not want this list to be public - it's so people who want to do the responsible disclosure process can get some response and possibly help. If someone just wants to go public there's always qemu-devel. I guess we can configure it to actually be non-public, but hiding information seems unlikely to be one of savannah's strong points. I know if I was asked to post sensitive information to such a list I would hesitate, which isn't the effect we are trying to achieve here. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:57:26PM +, Liguori, Anthony wrote: https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/admin/qemu-security Has been created but it will take 24-48 hours for Savannah to do it's thing. I'll send out the mailing list password to Michael and Peter once it is created. Regards, Anthony Liguori From: Michael S. Tsirkin [m...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:39 AM To: Peter Maydell Cc: Anthony Liguori; qemu-devel; Stefan Hajnoczi; Andreas Färber; Liguori, Anthony Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:24:45PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: On 17 April 2014 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Also I'd like a more explicit name, we don't want general security related discussions on that list. qemu-secal...@nongnu.org ? OK, so do we want to: (a) commit this patch as-is (b) set up the proposed mailing list? If (b), who has the admin rights to do that? I don't feel strongly either way. thanks -- PMM Way I see it, as long as it has the same people, it probably doesn't matter :) We can get around to creating a list if/when more people volunteer. I also think we want people to have the option to communicate with pgp. Some searches I found mailman patches for pgp support: http://non-gnu.uvt.nl/mailman-pgp-smime/ but without that, we really need to list individual people for now. -- MST
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 05:35:38PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I'll play around once I get the password. From what I've seen so far, I'm not sure it's the right server to use for security :( I did some more reseach and savannah does not seem to support any encryption for its lists: neither TLS nor PGP. This would mean that all communication has to be in the clear. I think that for this use, we would be better off with an option that can guarantee a measure of privacy. For now simply listing specific addresses and GPG keys looks like the only way. Makes sense? I would really like us to get an agreement on this so we can start making progress on harder issues such as agreeing on a security policy. The list now appears here https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo under the heading Below is a listing of all the public mailing lists on lists.nongnu.org. The list page https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-security also seems to even have a link to public archives - it's not live but its presence might scare people away. We definitely do not want this list to be public - it's so people who want to do the responsible disclosure process can get some response and possibly help. If someone just wants to go public there's always qemu-devel. I guess we can configure it to actually be non-public, but hiding information seems unlikely to be one of savannah's strong points. I know if I was asked to post sensitive information to such a list I would hesitate, which isn't the effect we are trying to achieve here. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:57:26PM +, Liguori, Anthony wrote: https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/admin/qemu-security Has been created but it will take 24-48 hours for Savannah to do it's thing. I'll send out the mailing list password to Michael and Peter once it is created. Regards, Anthony Liguori From: Michael S. Tsirkin [m...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:39 AM To: Peter Maydell Cc: Anthony Liguori; qemu-devel; Stefan Hajnoczi; Andreas Färber; Liguori, Anthony Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:24:45PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: On 17 April 2014 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Also I'd like a more explicit name, we don't want general security related discussions on that list. qemu-secal...@nongnu.org ? OK, so do we want to: (a) commit this patch as-is (b) set up the proposed mailing list? If (b), who has the admin rights to do that? I don't feel strongly either way. thanks -- PMM Way I see it, as long as it has the same people, it probably doesn't matter :) We can get around to creating a list if/when more people volunteer. I also think we want people to have the option to communicate with pgp. Some searches I found mailman patches for pgp support: http://non-gnu.uvt.nl/mailman-pgp-smime/ but without that, we really need to list individual people for now. -- MST
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
Liguori, Anthony aligu...@amazon.com writes: I think this is a bit overkill. Many projects use private mailing lists for this purpose. I guess you're right on the average level of paranoia among people willing to report security issues, but I'm afraid you might be off on the 90th percentile. Besides, an encrypted option should be offered as a matter of general principle. Today more than ever.
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com --- MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 34b8c3f..713546f 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ General Project Administration -- M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +Responsible Disclosure, Reporting Security Issues +-- +M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com +M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +L: secal...@redhat.com + Guest CPU cores (TCG): -- Alpha -- MST
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
Am 17.04.2014 15:54, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com --- MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 34b8c3f..713546f 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ General Project Administration -- M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +Responsible Disclosure, Reporting Security Issues +-- +M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com +M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +L: secal...@redhat.com I believe that after the QEMU Summit 2012 Anthony wanted to set up a Wiki page on that. Was that forgotten? If so, we should add one, otherwise we should make it findable and reference it here via W:. Thanks for documenting this in MAINTAINERS, Andreas + Guest CPU cores (TCG): -- Alpha -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On 17 April 2014 14:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. This makes sense to me -- as I understand it we've always informally leaned on the Red Hat security apparatus, so having it written down somewhere so people know who they ought to inform seems like a good idea to me. We can also write something up on the wiki at some point. It might be worth discussing what our general process for security fixes is -- in the past we've had both: * fix is quietly committed to git and then announced/posted on the mailing list * fix gets a CVE and patches are posted to the list but not necessarily committed to git Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com --- MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 34b8c3f..713546f 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ General Project Administration -- M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +Responsible Disclosure, Reporting Security Issues +-- +M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com +M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +L: secal...@redhat.com If our process is going to involve direct-commit-of-fixes then we probably need more than one committer listed here to over for holidays/etc. thanks -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:03:48PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: On 17 April 2014 14:54, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. This makes sense to me -- as I understand it we've always informally leaned on the Red Hat security apparatus, so having it written down somewhere so people know who they ought to inform seems like a good idea to me. We can also write something up on the wiki at some point. Yes, and once such a page is written it's a good idea to reference it in MAINTAINERS. It might be worth discussing what our general process for security fixes is -- in the past we've had both: * fix is quietly committed to git and then announced/posted on the mailing list * fix gets a CVE and patches are posted to the list but not necessarily committed to git We also had cases where fix got a CVE and downstreams patched their product, later fix was posted upstream and committed to git. But at this point, I plan to just help people with the mechanics. What me and secalert can do for you is: opening CVEs communicating issues to downstreams give downstreams a bit of time to react suggest best course of action including some of the above steps Any of this can happen before making issues public Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com --- MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 34b8c3f..713546f 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ General Project Administration -- M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +Responsible Disclosure, Reporting Security Issues +-- +M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com +M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +L: secal...@redhat.com If our process is going to involve direct-commit-of-fixes then we probably need more than one committer listed here to over for holidays/etc. thanks -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Regards, Anthony Liguori --- MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 34b8c3f..713546f 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ General Project Administration -- M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +Responsible Disclosure, Reporting Security Issues +-- +M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com +M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +L: secal...@redhat.com + Guest CPU cores (TCG): -- Alpha -- MST
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Regards, Anthony Liguori I prefer to be listed directly, for example some people might want to use my public key to encrypt the mail. But I'm not sure we want the list to be moderated - what does this buy us? We want to make subscriptions limited in some way though - how is it done? --- MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 34b8c3f..713546f 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ General Project Administration -- M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +Responsible Disclosure, Reporting Security Issues +-- +M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com +M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +L: secal...@redhat.com + Guest CPU cores (TCG): -- Alpha -- MST
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: addresses for responsible disclosure
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote: People sometimes detect security issues in upstream QEMU and don't know where to report them in a non-public way. Of course whoever just wants full disclosure can just go public, but there's nothing specified for non-public - until recently Anthony was doing this informally. As I started doing this recently anyway, I can handle this on the QEMU side in a more formal way. Adding a secalert mailing list as well - they are the ones who is actually opening CVEs, communicating issues to all downstreams etc, and they are already handling this for upstream, not just Red Hat. Keeping Anthony's address around in case he wants to be informed. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com What about using qemu-secur...@nongnu.org and creating that as a moderated mailing list with no public archive? That way there's a single contact point and there can be many people backing it up to make sure that disclosures are handled very quickly. Regards, Anthony Liguori Also I'd like a more explicit name, we don't want general security related discussions on that list. qemu-secal...@nongnu.org ? --- MAINTAINERS | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 34b8c3f..713546f 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ General Project Administration -- M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +Responsible Disclosure, Reporting Security Issues +-- +M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com +M: Anthony Liguori aligu...@amazon.com +L: secal...@redhat.com + Guest CPU cores (TCG): -- Alpha -- MST
