Mozilla and Security
Tuesday March 28th, 2000
Nothing like a little rhetoric to get you hopping in the morning. This latest comes from some guy called AP who made a submission to Slashdot regarding a discussion currently going on in n.p.m.security. In it, he states that the Mozilla team is contemplating limiting access to security bugs, implying that the team is substituting obscurity for security. He fans the flames by saying "Are Mozilla developers missing the point of open source (implying open security bugs) or are they under pressure from Netscape?"
If you read the discussion thread titled "Security bugs and disclosure" in n.p.m.security, you will see that the discussion is not exactly what AP portrayed, and mozilla.org members are actually having a serious discussion about disclosure, security and Open Source. This is what Open Source is about, people!!! What kind of access would you have to this kind of discussion if the process was closed? Open Source isn't just about open code - it's about open discussion, as well. And mozilla.org has provided ample opportunity for discussion regarding practically every level of the development process. I think the fact that AP came across this discussion at all proves that the discussion process is adequately open.
If you have opinions regarding this, you should feel free to post them in the security newsgroup, but please read the previous posts in the thread, because they are reasonable posts from people who are trying to do the right thing.
#6 Let's not get deflected...
Tuesday March 28th, 2000 10:20 AM
You are replying to this message
As I said in the newsgroup, it's vital that the people having this extremely sensible discussion (who seem to be coming to the right conclusion, as well) don't get deflected by abuse/Slashdot weenie zealotry.
There is no point in revealing security bugs to anyone who has no familiarity at all with the Mozilla codebase - how could they possibly track down something faster than people who know it inside out? Restricting access is fine - we just need to work on the details of _who_.