From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [Formal Vote] Changes to Xen Project Security Vulnerability Process - Open until June 8th, 2015 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:43:04 +0100 Message-ID: <1433504584.7108.234.camel@citrix.com> References: <35D18A2F-7B4B-47B8-B673-4C049D19344A@gmail.com> <1433324122.7108.36.camel@citrix.com> <04C3D906-4508-4270-9C81-C625B58A91F6@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <04C3D906-4508-4270-9C81-C625B58A91F6@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Lars Kurth Cc: keir Fraser , Tim Deegan , Ian Jackson , Major Hayden , "" , security@xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 12:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2015, at 10:35, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 10:36 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote: > >> In the event that we do not have a patch available two working weeks > >> before the disclosure date, we aim to send an advisory that reflects > >> the current state of knowledge to the Xen security pre-disclosure > >> list. An updated advisory will be published as soon as available. > > > > I'm a bit concerned about the conditions and frequency with which > > updated advisories would be expected, but not enough to object, +1. > > > > Ian. > > Ian, would expect that this clause will only really kick in in rare situations, as in the Venom case, where we were waiting for a patch from a 3rd party. For example, if the security team almost has an advisory ready 2 weeks before the disclosure date, I wouldn't expect that anything would change and you just do what you have always done. I think the phrase "aim to" gives the security team enough flexibility. > > That was my interpretation of the text (or the intention). I just didn't want to over-codify the text. > > Does this make sense? Yep, and more importantly I can point to this mail if there is any disagreement about the spirit of the text ;-) Ian.