User talk:Ptheriault

censorship

paul, hi: you're aware that the b2g-dev mailing list owners have enacted draconian censorship, including banning access to dev-b2g, denying permission to post to lists.mozilla.org, and severing the two-way link between the Google groups newsgroup and lists.mozilla.org... so why would you add this to the security threats page?

Note: Please feel free to add to this document but please keep discussion to the discussion page, or the B2G mailing list.

also, over 50% of what i added to the security threats page was not "discussion", it was actual threat countermeasures.

i am becoming increasingly alarmed and concerned at Mozilla foundation members' behavior.

your help in reassuring me as to what is clearly an oversight or perhaps a misunderstanding on my part greatly appreciated. Lkcl 16:05, 27 March 2012 (PDT)

Not sure if this is the best place to respond but I'm not censoring, I'm editing. Just trying to keep the threats page at the same high level. Some comments I removed because they were comments - I don't think they will be seen on this page, and wiki is not the place for discussion. Most of the other additions were on code signing - in my opinion, code signing, while important, is only a mitigation against the app host and network compromise threats, and they are mentioned (although I did notice it wasn't in the network section, so I have re-added it). I just don't want to bog the page down in too much detail. This page is not place for detailed proposal of controls. Not yet at least, until the threats are more clearly defined, which is the process which Lucas is trying to drive at the moment.