On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 12:50 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 10/16/2013 11:59 AM, Richard Ryniker wrote: > > Unnecessary "private" designation for a bug report might be due to > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011916 > > > > which complains that a bug reporter has to decide about "private" status > > before possibly sensitive information in the report can be examined. > > No private information is supposed to be sent over the wire or be > harvested by the reporting tool or anything that is automatically filed
Well, that's kind of impossible. Sometimes a backtrace is going to contain sensitive information. It can't really be any other way. You can't stop a backtrace collection tool from collecting it. You can try to filter it out as best as possible, but you're never going to be 100% accurate. > ( if it does we have a serious problem ) and the reporter is supposed to > be responsible for sanitizing his log before submitting them. That's more or less what Richard is talking about. abrt tries to detect if anything in the submitted report might be sensitive (as well as trying to avoid including any expected-to-be-sensitive info whenever possible) and offers to flag the report as private if it thinks so. Not perfect, but better than nothing. There are various issues with its method of doing this which I've reported recently, so it ought to be improving... Still, this isn't the case we were dealing with here, it was the clone-of-a-private-RHEL-bug thing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
