From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 9 13:57:10 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B5C58B for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 012991A83 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:57:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id a108so2358598qge.31 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:57:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=O1SDtEPP7pqGnx/zjKA+GLvh+mkFitnbsejdLQ6YWyY=; b=Rnk5lhoUDkaAkq+41kRzuVJpAWIiJzOEWbtk8ZHEBdMBsiQn/HOof7RAdHoIqYAIlM BfETPbY+0BCdRs8P5KoJUY49DurLYHfZAXmOc/9Fw/2QxWRLIIOyU6hLY15VnT9q6lOt 6cUA3KH9yuvx69rRe9MUYY5sZTXvtEJjFsxdZR5Id0FyO/byEq2IrmDrE/UO/ovXEvWQ CMVWdHUPHlBh7SCW7NBAi/AyRuTPyhwsNsx1jOcljJgw0NoRUAqbezanblImMfMleP4R cooJqXEJK/jPK+zck9OrUyI6nMUZ7d5tzB2FYCUkFN4PRj/0VEt0dSvlzZPWLTwuKFfs W9ig== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.169.5 with SMTP id w5mr2676892qay.96.1397051829169; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.126.133 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 06:57:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:57:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Proposal (Was: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:06.openssl) From: Big Lebowski To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:20:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:57:10 -0000 > >* I understand that this is voluntary role and you have another (real *> >* life) responsibilities that=E2=80=99s why I'd like to propose an idea= of (at *> >* least partially) paid position of Security Officer, because we all *> >* need quick and efficient response in cases like that. *> > Having a paid Security Officer would not have made any difference. Do you care to elaborate on why it would not made any difference? And, if possible, also on what could do one, if you have any ideas about that? I have to say that I agree with Pawe=C5=82 fully, I would love to see such things being handled a way faster and to be better communicated, if they're 'on they way' and I also belive having paid Security Office could help - but I am happy to get to know why I might be under wrong impression. I also doesnt know if there's any chance of directing any monye from this year's budget towards improving that situation, but I also like the idea of 'targeted' funding, where people gets a chance to say where they want the money to be used, some sort of money democracy, I would say. Regards, Bl