Arturo Garcia wrote:
> On Thursday 27 Sep 2007, Steve Long wrote:
>> No the point, as I see it, is that a security _audit_ of the code is now
>> being carried out. Not a fix to one bug.
> As I said, fine with me, but *do* it and then close the bug. Open new
> ones, assign them and link them to the original bug if you wish. We act
> on them and we close them as well.
Er the point was that the audit *is* being carried out as we speak. How long
it takes depends on 1) how much time taviso has spare and 2) how much real
help he gets with it.
We're getting a bit mixed up in terms of what is tracked as a bug on
bugzilla and the actual initial problem (the command injection.) While the
bug on bugzilla is about the injection problem, I personally wouldn't close
it til the audit has been completed and the service is back on-line.
>> That's why it would be great if the report were submitted. Or do you
>> think it wise to bring the service back up with known flaws?
> What report?!? Onkobu offered help in auditing any future patches if
> anybody required so. Nothing more. Unfortunately, he got angry (no wonder)
> and pulled out. Maybe he is now running another distro... I haven't been
> in touch with him.
Well it read more like there were other flaws which he had spotted (in the
bit I quoted at least.) So: /that/ report of all the flaws you or anyone
else can find. If you've found the flaw you should know how to fix it, so
attach a patch.
> Regarding the flaws, as I said, look at the code and find for yourself.
Er why should I? I'm not a dev, nor am I that bothered. You on the other
hand seem quite concerned about this, yet reluctant to do anything.
> As far as I know, Tavis *has* reviewed the patch and the code. All what
> is outstanding is for the site to be tested. If he opens new bugs, then
> we will patch and close them.
One patch to one flaw, when you concede that there are others. Fine, if it's
been patched then close it and make a tracker for other flaws: it won't
lead to the service being back quicker, in fact it'll probably take longer
since additional bugs would be filed. To my mind, once he's found another
flaw, it's a lot less time to fix it: why then would it be useful to file a
bug about it?
>> I didn't write the lines about the whole service needing reworking
>> either. I'm just trying to explain why I think the process is being
>> carried out properly.
> ?_? again. I don't understand what are you trying to say?!? I don't see
> the correlation between this and your (or my) first post. Sorry.
OK. My point is, and was, that an audit covers the whole codebase. IOW he
literally has to scan every single line. This process is being carried out
properly IMO, since to only patch one flaw and put the service back on-line
would be irresponsible at best.
> As a summary, the next step now is for firstname.lastname@example.org to their work
> (as Infra has *repeatedly* said and requested). If someone can poke them
> to do so please, it will be highly appreciated. If they audit, test, or
> jump on one foot while holding raw eggs on their head I don't care. It's
> their job.
Er they're not paid for it, so it's not a job in the sense that you imply.
How exactly do you want "them" to be poked? As stated there's only one dev
assigned to it and he's busy starting Uni. While I agree this is
unfortunate, I imagine there simply aren't that many security devs.
> Bug please test and come back to us. Thanks.
FWIW I totally agree that p.g.o should be back online as a matter of
priority. If you want that done, help with the audit: get a report together
of all the flaws (and fixes) that you can find. If not, stop whinging that
no one else is doing it (and more importantly stop telling me to do it),
when a volunteer has already been assigned. It'll take him as long as it
"With Free software you either do, or you wait." Pick one.
email@example.com mailing list