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 B11938B4 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9784DF7 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:15:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iebmu5 with SMTP id mu5so155281ieb.1 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:15:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: keescook@google.com In-Reply-To: <20150711163838.GA4441@thunk.org> References: <20150710143832.GU23515@io.lakedaemon.net> <20150710162328.GB12009@thunk.org> <1436599873.2243.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150711160202.GC23515@io.lakedaemon.net> <20150711163838.GA4441@thunk.org> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:15:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Kees Cook To: "Theodore Ts'o" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: James Bottomley , Josh Boyer , Jason Cooper , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] dev/maintainer workflow security List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 04:02:02PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: >> >> Could we have some sort of post-vuln/CVE conversation dissecting the >> vulnerability and how it got there? Or, perhaps select a few for >> process-dissection to be presented at the summit? > > Kees did a really good presentation entitled "security anti-patterns" > a year or two ago at a kernel summit (the one at Edinburgh if I > remember correctly?). Kees, do you think it would be worth updating > and re-doing that presentation? And perhaps at a wider set of venues > beyond just the kernel summit.... I can, yeah, but I sort of think stuff like that is really just "reference material", and sometimes too specific. Reviewers (and authors) need to think about high-level risks, not just mechanical flaws. I would agree that beefing up reviewer roles could really help this part of the problem, though. -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security