Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Mark Guertin <guertin@××××××××××××××.com>
To: Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] Idea for easily checking for security updates.
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:20:29
Message-Id: 30F1E2A0-5B24-11D8-B65F-000A95DC1AB2@brucemaudesign.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] Idea for easily checking for security updates. by Marius Mauch
1 On 9-Feb-04, at 11:57 AM, Marius Mauch wrote:
2
3 > On 02/09/04 Ixion wrote:
4 >
5 >> I second that! I've been doing 'emerge -u world's on my web server at
6 >> home and the fileservers here at work, and like Mark, do not feel
7 >> comfortable with this. I also don't have a lot of time to dig around
8 >> and find out why there was an update (unless there's an easy way to do
9 >> this??).
10 >>
11 >> I think 'emerge -u -L1 world' is an awesome idea! :)
12 >
13 > But not really possible to implement as the importance is rather
14 > subjective and dependant on the context. Example:
15 >
16 > foo-1.0.1 is a trivial update to foo-1.0.0
17 > foo-1.0.2 is a trivial update to foo-1.0.1
18 >
19 > now is foo-1.0.2 also a trivial update to foo-1.0.0 ?
20 > You'd have to define the importance against all previous versions or
21 > find a very intelligent algorithm that makes everyone happy.
22
23 Not really. if you look at the way freshmeat.net setups up their
24 priorities for updates then it all makes more sense and I would love to
25 see a 'vitality' or whatever you want to call it into the metadata.
26 Their priorities are always referred against the previous version of
27 the code in question. If you do want to compare against the current
28 installation it's simple math iterating over available versions, but I
29 think this is getting overly complicated for nothing, the primary focus
30 here should ideally be that security updates get noticed and updated in
31 a timely matter without having to track things by hand.
32
33
34 > Also who should define the importance ? The ebuild maintainer might
35 > have
36 > a different opinion about what's important than you (not to mention
37 > that
38 > it just adds one more piece of information that has to be maintained).
39
40 As far as developers setting the vitality of the update, it would be
41 simple enough to lay out basic guidelines (there will always be
42 judgment calls that will vary but at least we get in the ballpark) that
43 they could follow as a template, and I can't think of a better person
44 to set the vitality of the update than the developer maintaining the
45 package (who is most cases should be fairly intimate with the package
46 in question).
47
48 Even if it just went as far as marking crucial security updates with
49 some sort of flag it would be better than where we are at right now
50 doing things by hand, and at the very least these types of very
51 important security updates should have some way of setting themselves
52 as a priority and notifying the user that there are updates available
53 that if you don't do could compromise the security of your machine.
54
55 Mark
56
57
58 --
59 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-security] Built in integrity? James Dennis <james@×××××××××××××.com>