Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130412131844.GI4361@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions ("Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious
questions
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
* Greg Sabino Mullane (greg@turnstep.com) wrote: > Still sounds like a huge mess. Who gets put on the committee? The initial suggestion was to put -core on it. > Wouldn't the > committee need to have a huge database of potential people to notify, including > details of their systems (e.g. do they use tsearch, if this is a tsearch bug). No; if it's that specific, then it's not a high-exposure security bug. There will certainly be some amount of trial-and-error associated with this, but that's the nature of security issues- they aren't all going to be the same. > Would they be deciding on people on a case by case basis, or just deciding > on what class of people get notified. If the latter, why not just have > core continue to do it? My comments around "-core or a committee" was more geared towards if -core felt a seperate committee would be better. I'm fine with it being left with -core, but I do feel that we should publicize and perhaps formalize a bit more that policy. > If the former, how can that be agile enough for a > quick turnaround? Would companies have to be requested to be added to > this database, in the hopes they get notified of a serious bug before it > is released? Yes, organizations which felt they met the requirements outlined in the policy would need to request to be added and then a decision by -core (or whatever group it is) would need to be made regarding that request. > Perhaps we can just agree that the way this was handled was a mistake, and > strive for more transparency and egalitarianism next time? Sure, Heroku has > a huge list of servers listening on 5432, but do did that place in Poland, > and apparently they did not get a early warning. I agree that, in hindsight, we could have done better. That's what this discussion is about- figuring out how to do better in the future. I don't think that means we should give up on having a security policy which allows early access to trusted organizations. Thanks, Stephen
Вложения
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: