Re: GNU C Library as its own CNA?

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>]

On 2023-09-10 12:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep  8, 2023, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
>> A single non-root CNA for all of the GNU project doesn't make sense to
>> me, given that packages have very distinct communities and needs.
> 
> It seem like you're saying that GNU, as a CNA, would be unable to offer
> to individual packages whatever it is that Red Hat, as root CNA, would.
> Could you please elaborate on that distinction you're making?
> Presumably you know more about it than I do, and if you're on to
> something, that would suggest that GNU should pursue becoming a root
> CNA, so that it can offer its packages the same sort of status you
> appear to expect when you state that it would make no sense for them to
> be under a non-root CNA.

A root CNA may have subordinate CNAs under it that would be responsible 
for triage and CVE assignment for their project, a subordinate CNA may 
not.  It may be possible to have a single GNU subordinate CNA under Red 
Hat and then form a GNU security organization that emulates this 
internally somehow but I don't see the point of doing that because the 
security needs of individual projects in GNU vary widely and they're 
best served by their individual communities.

If GNU registers as a root CNA with Mitre at some point, like Florian 
said, the glibc CNA could just move under it.  It is pointless to try 
and complicate the process at this initial stage IMO.

Sid