You are not authorised to read this bug?

[Russell Strong]

Rex Dieter wrote:
> Russell Strong wrote:
>
>   
>> What ever it is.  It would be nice if bugzilla stated a reason for
>> denying access.  
>>     
>
> patches welcome, of course.
>
>   
>> So far the guesses are:
>>
>> RHEL bug ( I wouldn't be happy, if I was a RHEL user and saw this )
>> Microsoft owned Bugzilla :) ( My favourite )
>> Security Embargo
>>     
>
> Bugs marked security/private are only viewable by the submitter and
> assignee.  Anyone submitting a bug can mark one as such.  There is no
> conspiracy at work.
>
>   
>> But how do we really know?  How much do we trust Redhat?
>>     
>
> Yeah, definitely.  They're out to get us.  Everyone, don your tinfoil
> hats, quickly!
>
> -- Rex
>
>   
I didn't say Redhat was out to get us, but not everyone wants others to 
make security decisions on their behalf.  Something that they consider 
low risk is not necessarily considered low risk by everyone.  They could 
at least give a description of what is effected,  how exposure can be 
limited and when full disclosure will be given.  They don't have to 
expose information necessary for exploit.  Also, Rehat is fallible just 
like every other organisation, just take a walk through bugzilla and see 
how many bugs are still at the NEW state.  How many people are actually 
reading them?  Do they always trust the reporter to recognise a security 
problem?

Anyway, who knows what this is?  It may not be anything related to security.