On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:28 +0000, "JÃhann B. GuÃmundsson" wrote: > On 05/18/2011 03:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Feedback please! Thanks:) > > Given that we ship selinux on by default should this proposal only be > applicable to exploits/vulnerability that selinux cant catch and prevent > which leaves us with <insert type of exploits here )? I kinda considered that to be implicit in the criterion as written, but as two people have asked about it, obviously we should clarify that :) > Don't we need individual(s) from the security team that will be doing > actively security audit during the development cycle and reporting back > to QA? Well, 'enforcing' the criteria is a separate issue from determining them, and we don't really need to discuss it here. Having an explicit criterion adds value even if we don't set up a formal validation system, because it gives us solid ground to review any security issues which get proposed as release blockers on an ad hoc basis. > Would not applying this security release proposal to final only suffice? Well, I mean, it depends what you mean by 'suffice' :). I worked on the basis that we probably don't want to ship any widely-distributed 'release' with a major security issue, but as I wrote, it's certainly up for debate. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
