[kernel-hardening] Linux security workgroup usage of kernel-hardening mailing list

[kernel-hardening] Linux security workgroup usage of kernel-hardening mailing list

[Corey Bryant]

There was a discussion about forming a Linux security workgroup at the 
2012 Linux Security Summit: 
http://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Linux_Security_Summit_2012.

The charter of the workgroup is to provide on-going security 
verification of Linux kernel subsystems in order to assist in securing 
the Linux Kernel and maintain trust and confidence in the security of 
the Linux ecosystem.

This may include, but is not limited to, topics such as tooling to 
assist in securing the Linux Kernel, verification and testing of 
critical subsystems for vulnerabilities, security improvements for build 
tools, and providing guidance for maintaining subsystem security.

Would it be okay if we used the kernel-hardening mailing list for 
communication?  If our traffic ever gets to be too much we could get our 
own list.

-- 
Regards,
Corey Bryant

Re: [kernel-hardening] Linux security workgroup usage of kernel-hardening mailing list

[Solar Designer]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:49:35PM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
> The charter of the workgroup is to provide on-going security 
> verification of Linux kernel subsystems in order to assist in securing 
> the Linux Kernel and maintain trust and confidence in the security of 
> the Linux ecosystem.
> 
> This may include, but is not limited to, topics such as tooling to 
> assist in securing the Linux Kernel, verification and testing of 
> critical subsystems for vulnerabilities, security improvements for build 
> tools, and providing guidance for maintaining subsystem security.
> 
> Would it be okay if we used the kernel-hardening mailing list for 
> communication?

Of course!  Please do.

> If our traffic ever gets to be too much

This would be a good problem to have (well, assuming that list traffic
correlates with actual progress).

Alexander

Re: [kernel-hardening] Linux security workgroup usage of kernel-hardening mailing list

[Corey Bryant]

On 09/25/2012 12:02 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:49:35PM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
>> The charter of the workgroup is to provide on-going security
>> verification of Linux kernel subsystems in order to assist in securing
>> the Linux Kernel and maintain trust and confidence in the security of
>> the Linux ecosystem.
>>
>> This may include, but is not limited to, topics such as tooling to
>> assist in securing the Linux Kernel, verification and testing of
>> critical subsystems for vulnerabilities, security improvements for build
>> tools, and providing guidance for maintaining subsystem security.
>>
>> Would it be okay if we used the kernel-hardening mailing list for
>> communication?
>
> Of course!  Please do.
>

Excellent, thanks!  Should we tag our subjects with anything?  I was 
thinking "lswg: ".

>> If our traffic ever gets to be too much
>
> This would be a good problem to have (well, assuming that list traffic
> correlates with actual progress).

:)

>
> Alexander
>
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Corey Bryant

Re: [kernel-hardening] Linux security workgroup usage of kernel-hardening mailing list

[Solar Designer]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:23:14AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
> Excellent, thanks!  Should we tag our subjects with anything?  I was 
> thinking "lswg: ".

It's your call, but I doubt that such tagging would be of much/any use.
The topics you have listed are some of what's supposed to be discussed
on this list, and some of the threads may proceed to other related
topics, which are not limited to the focus of lswg (but the tags would
remain).  Similarly, postings by non-lswg folks may be relevant to you.
I think it'd be too difficult/unreasonable to keep the separation.

Alexander

Re: [kernel-hardening] Linux security workgroup usage of kernel-hardening mailing list

[Corey Bryant]

On 09/25/2012 02:07 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:23:14AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
>> Excellent, thanks!  Should we tag our subjects with anything?  I was
>> thinking "lswg: ".
>
> It's your call, but I doubt that such tagging would be of much/any use.
> The topics you have listed are some of what's supposed to be discussed
> on this list, and some of the threads may proceed to other related
> topics, which are not limited to the focus of lswg (but the tags would
> remain).  Similarly, postings by non-lswg folks may be relevant to you.
> I think it'd be too difficult/unreasonable to keep the separation.
>
> Alexander
>
>
>

Ok we'll go without the tag then.  Thanks again!

-- 
Regards,
Corey Bryant