Re: [PATCH] Documentation/security-bugs: Explain why plain text is preferred

[Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 09:42:56PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:11:30AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > The security contact list gets regular reports contained in archive
> > attachments. This tends to add some back-and-forth delay in dealing with
> > security reports since we have to ask for plain text, etc.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst | 9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > index dcd6c93c7aac..c32eb786201c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > @@ -21,11 +21,18 @@ understand and fix the security vulnerability.
> >  
> >  As it is with any bug, the more information provided the easier it
> >  will be to diagnose and fix.  Please review the procedure outlined in
> > -admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst if you are unclear about what
> > +:doc:`reporting-bugs` if you are unclear about what
> >  information is helpful.  Any exploit code is very helpful and will not
> >  be released without consent from the reporter unless it has already been
> >  made public.
> >  
> > +Please send plain text emails without attachments where possible.
> > +It is much harder to have a context-quoted discussion about a complex
> > +issue if all the details are hidden away in attachments.  Think of it like a
> > +:doc:`regular patch submission <../process/submitting-patches>`
> > +(even if you don't have a patch yet): describe the problem and impact, list
> > +reproduction steps, and follow it with a proposed fix, all in plain text.
> > +
> 
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

Thanks!

> 
> Hopefully "plain text" implies unencrypted as much as it does "not html".

I decided not to write a paragraph about how security@ isn't a
role-account with a separate GPG key etc etc. Those cases are rare
enough that I don't think it (yet) warrants a paragraph here. I want to
strike a balance between "all your questions are answered" and "there's
too much here for me to find the answer to my question". :)

-- 
Kees Cook