From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74BE6D25 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 14:20:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-f174.google.com (mail-pl1-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 739265E2 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 14:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f174.google.com with SMTP id j8-v6so7808203pll.12 for ; Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Andy Lutomirski In-Reply-To: <20180908113411.GA3111@kroah.com> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 07:20:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20180908082141.15d72684@coco.lan> <20180908113411.GA3111@kroah.com> To: Greg KH Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Handling of embargoed security issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > On Sep 8, 2018, at 4:34 AM, Greg KH wrote: >=20 >> On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 08:21:41AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> IMHO, the best would be to have a formal/legal way to handle it. >=20 > No, sorry, some of us are not allowed legally to sign NDAs for stuff > like this. So keeping legal out of is it the best solution and we have > done that pretty well so far. >=20 A lot us us (such as yours truly) have NDAs in place. I would love a clear m= echanism by which a vendor gives explicit permission for me to communicate w= ith other relevant parties. It doesn=E2=80=99t need to be fancy and legalist= ic, but having it written down would be very, very nice.=