List Archive: gentoo-security
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Friday 26 August 2011 14:08:38 Kevin Bryan wrote:
> Although I like having the summary information about what the
> vulnerability is, if I'm only reading them for packages I have
> installed, then a reference of some kind would suffice.
> I'd be fine even if it was just a new variable in the .ebuild file that
> somehow indicated which versions it was a fix for, reusing the syntax
> for dependency checking. A reference to the CVE or gentoo bug reference
> would be good, too:
> SECURITY_REF="CVE:2010-2169 http://..."
> Then would be most of the work the committer needs to do is right there
> in a file they are modifying anyway.
> The portage @security set could also look for and evaluate these tags,
> instead of parsing the GLSA's.
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
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 Legler <email@example.com>
Gentoo Security / Ruby
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)