| 1 |
On 09/12/2012 02:54 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El jue, 13-09-2012 a las 04:30 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió: |
| 3 |
>> On 2012-09-13 03:59, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Hello |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> Currently, package maintainers are CCed to security bugs when their are |
| 7 |
>>> needed. The problem is that, once maintainers add a fixed version and |
| 8 |
>>> tell security team they are ok to get it stabilized, maintainers are |
| 9 |
>>> kept CCed until bug is closed by security team. This usually means |
| 10 |
>>> getting a lot of mail after some time when security team discuss if a |
| 11 |
>>> GLSA should be filled or not, if security bot adds some comment... some |
| 12 |
>>> of that comments are applied to really old bugs that need no action from |
| 13 |
>>> maintainers. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Our discussion is very minimal. There will typically never be any more |
| 17 |
than 3 comments discussing whether to have a GLSA or not -- in the event |
| 18 |
that 2 security team members disagree and a 3rd has to break the tie. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Some bugs have been receiving more spam than usual (lately, from |
| 21 |
GLSAMaker/CVETool bot) as we have been trying to clean-up old CVE |
| 22 |
entries in the tool and old bugs. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It would be nice if maintainers would follow-up on security bugs in |
| 25 |
[upstream], [ebuild], [stable], and [cleanup] to get those bugs closed |
| 26 |
as soon as possible. You are welcome to join the security team to help |
| 27 |
us keep bugs up-to-date and work on the backlog of GLSAs. :D |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
>>> Maybe would be interesting to change the policy to unCC maintainers |
| 30 |
>>> again when their action is no longer required. |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> What do you think? |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>>> Thanks for your thoughts |
| 35 |
>>> |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> Hello, |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> Is the policy you describe officially documented, or just current |
| 40 |
behaviour? |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> I don't know, at least it's the current behavior, but I don't know if |
| 44 |
> it's a policy :/ |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Yes, this is part of the Vulnerability Treatment Policy [1], listed |
| 47 |
under the "Security Bug Wrangler role" in Chapter 3. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
>> In KDE and Qt herds for example, we usually just unCC ourselves when |
| 51 |
>> we've taken the required action. |
| 52 |
>> |
| 53 |
>> Best regards, |
| 54 |
>> Michael |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
The security bug process [2] involves removing the vulnerable versions |
| 58 |
from the tree after all arches are finished stabilizing. This is to |
| 59 |
ensure that users do not accidentally install vulnerable software. Many |
| 60 |
maintainers do not do this and I think that all of us on the security |
| 61 |
team are guilty of not always following up to ensure the vulnerable |
| 62 |
versions are dropped. As Jeroen mentioned, how will maintainers know |
| 63 |
when to remove the vulnerable versions if they are not current on the bug? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
If stabilization is complete and the maintainers have removed vulnerable |
| 66 |
versions from the tree, there is typically no issue with unCC'ing |
| 67 |
themselves like KDE/Qt herds do. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Arches sometimes run into minor issues that don't warrant opening a new |
| 70 |
bug - they should be able to get help from maintainers without re-CC'ing |
| 71 |
them. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
If a decision were made to unCC maintainers, there would probably be |
| 74 |
some maintainers/herds that want to be left on the CC list and the |
| 75 |
security team does not have the capacity right now to keep up with |
| 76 |
exceptions. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
(Strictly my opinions, not that of the whole security team) |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml#doc_chap3 |
| 82 |
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/coordinator_guide.xml#doc_chap3 |
Archives