<div dir="ltr">You just thought so because of the following issue.<a href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/libfprint/libfprint/merge_requests/47">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/libfprint/libfprint/merge_requests/47</a> Here, you insist that this is not a bug or there is no need to fix it.But, it has been proven by another coordination platform that this is a security issue.It seems to be a hardware design/implementation issue, more than a driver one.Currently, I know that vendor is preparing this by providing firmware updates/upgrades and driver patches including Linux and Windows.Later, disclosure of this issue will take place, not by me. BTW, you just said to me two times on upstream and Fedora bugzilla as following:“There are no short-term plans to fixing this. Any attempts at encrypting the fingerprints would just be security through obscurity as the decryption would need to be made available to fprintd and would therefore be available to other processes.The only way to currently safeguard the fingerprints is to run with SELinux, AppArmor or another LSM enabled, and made sure that only the fprintd binary has access to those saved fingerprints.” It implies that fingerprints exposure should be protected but it is not urgently needed (you may think that it just can cause a potential issue.).Then, you described how to deal with it; currently encrypting the fingerprints is hard to apply, but LSM will be more efficient.This means that you regard fingerprints as a sensitive data, right?Otherwise, you have no reason to protect fingerprints. If so, isn’t it vulnerable what a sensitive data is located in local disk not in the safety. </div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">2019년 5월 9일 (목) 오후 6:22, Bastien Nocera <<a href="mailto:hadess@hadess.net">hadess@hadess.net</a>>님이 작성: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 18:09 +0900, Seong-Joong Kim wrote: > I am really sorry to bother you. > I didn't mean it. > > As you know, I've reported this issue to upstream on Mar 6, but you > did not reply to my report about a month. That's because you were already spamming me, privately, about a number of issues. I answered you privately before then. > So I just want to know about freedesktop's official? stance. There's no "freedesktop official stance" anymore than github would have an official stance on potential security problems with software it hosts. > If it is vulnerability, I would like to request a CVE ID about > information leakage after your confirmation. I don't think it is, as I've already said many times. I don't know how I can phrase it any better. </blockquote></div>