| 1 |
On 03/11/2017 11:23 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Kristian, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:50:51 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 5 |
>> A draft of a Pre-GLEP for the Security project is available for reading |
| 6 |
>> at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:K_f/GLEP:Security |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> The GLEP follows a line of GLEPs for special projects that have |
| 9 |
>> tree-wide access in order to ensure proper accountability (c.f GLEP 48 |
| 10 |
>> for QA and still non-produced GLEP for ComRel (I've started working on |
| 11 |
>> this and will be presenting this one later as current ComRel Lead)) |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Comments, patches, threats, etc welcome |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> First of all, thank you for this Pre-GLEP, since we really need some |
| 16 |
> public and established policy for the Security project. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 1. From this proposal it looks like the Security Project Lead |
| 19 |
> obtains a lot of power and a lot of responsibility, maybe too much |
| 20 |
> for a single person to handle. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> While the Deputy may be assigned, this still gives all power to |
| 23 |
> single hands. Maybe it will be better to establish something like |
| 24 |
> the Security Project Council (SPC)? E.g. three project members may |
| 25 |
> be elected to this SPC, so that all serious decisions will require |
| 26 |
> some team agreement from at least 2 SPC members. This way the |
| 27 |
> Deputy will not be needed as well. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The thinking here is that the project lead is the responsible party. Any |
| 31 |
ambiguity can still be escalated to the Gentoo Council, but someone |
| 32 |
needs to be responsible from the side of the Gentoo Security Project. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> 2. "If a vulnerability is unlikely to be fixed by upstream or the |
| 35 |
> package's maintainer it might require a package mask." — I'd like |
| 36 |
> to see this expanded to more detail, because it is possible to mask |
| 37 |
> for removal and to simply mask without scheduled removal. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Sometimes an application is desirable even if it is vulnerable, |
| 40 |
> e.g. if there are no alternatives. Sometimes a vulnerability is |
| 41 |
> minor or affect a very rare use case. Sometimes users need a |
| 42 |
> specific software version for their workflow and they don't really |
| 43 |
> care about security — this affects many scientific packages being |
| 44 |
> used at isolated HPC setups. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> My point is that users must be informed about security problem, but |
| 47 |
> they still should have a choice. So it should be either a rule |
| 48 |
> "mask without removal" or clear guidelines when to remove a |
| 49 |
> package and when to not. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
At some point, of a package does not belong in the main tree due to |
| 52 |
security vulnerabilities, they can still be kept in an overlay by a |
| 53 |
respective project without it impacting other users. I'm not convinced |
| 54 |
that impacts the overall user experience of other Gentoo users. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 59 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 60 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives