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