Re: [gentoo-security] No GLSA since January?!?

[Daniel A. Avelino]

I like this approach but I have no idea about how this could be performed.

ACCEPT_RISKS="remote dos"  emerge ...

Sounds very cool to me.

Daniel

On 8/26/11, Kevin Bryan <bryank@××××××.edu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I was not considering the entire process, just the part that really
> impacts me: identifying vulnerable and patched packages.  Full
> advisories are nice, but really what I want to know is when I need to
> update a particular package.
>
> You are right that marking the packages that contain fixes doesn't
> really scale because of increased baggage to carry forward.
>
> The problem I have with GLSA's is that they don't come out until after
> the problem has been fixed.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to just have a system to label a particular
> ebuild/version as vulnerable.  Maybe something closer to package.mask,
> but for security would be appropriate.  With a package.security_mask,
> you could have anyone on the security project update that file with
> packages as soon as they know about it and while they are waiting on the
> devs to fix it.  References/links/impact could be noted in the comments
> above, as package.mask does now.
>
> As for interacting with 'emerge', I don't think we want the same
> semantics as package.mask, since we don't want to force a downgrade (if
> possible).  It should probably just warn when you ask it to install a
> vulnerable version.  Upgrades to safe versions will be quiet that way.
> The @security would contain packages with and without fixes so you get
> warnings for things that remain vulnerable, and updates for things that
> are fixed.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - --Kevin
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 08:40:29PM +0200, Alex Legler wrote:
>>
>> A complete change of the system is very unlikely.
>> Nevertheless: What is the end-to-end process in your solution? (i.e.
>> vulnerability report to 'advisory' release)
>>
>> A while ago a similar solution was proposed. Basically you want to shift
>> our
>> job back to the package maintainers. That might work, but rais a few new
>> issues.
>>
>> We'd automatically lose some consistency, because not everyone would
>> follow
>> the needed or wanted data scheme. Such a thing is much better to control
>> in a
>> smaller and better connected group of people.
>>
>> Also, cleanup and large amounts of issues in packages are issues. Browsers
>>
>> usually get hundreds of CVEs assigned in a year, that would be all in the
>> Ebuild, and for how long?
>>
>> Personally, I'm not convinced this is a model that would be an improvement
>>
>> over the current situation.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> --
>> Alex Legler <a3li@g.o>
>> Gentoo Security / Ruby
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk5X+/AACgkQ6ENyPMTUmzrujACfUhO6S0CUQ6RaX+Q+IAZM69Wd
> VakAnA4yzElckmCZaikTsPZdWZU5VazF
> =MSwi
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>