| 1 |
On 2016-12-15 22:43, Yury German wrote: |
| 2 |
> It does sound good, but not practical as it will introduce confusion |
| 3 |
> for the users especially those that do not constantly maintain their |
| 4 |
> system and only update the security patches. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I am wondering if these people understand that we also have security |
| 7 |
bugs without GLSAs: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
- Nowadays fuzz testing becomes more and more popular. But researchers |
| 10 |
often only report on their results without further investigations. |
| 11 |
Upstream will fix reported problems but often nobody knows if you |
| 12 |
could really exploit the findings. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
- We just don't have the man power to write a GLSA for any potential |
| 15 |
security problem. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- Once it was decided to not issue a GLSA I think we never revise |
| 18 |
decisions unless someone poke us or we gain information about an |
| 19 |
exploit/active attack in the wild. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So maybe we should also consider adding a new option to check for |
| 23 |
package updates based on security bugs without GLSA (I guess this would |
| 24 |
also need an update on Bugzilla to allows us tracking/exporting such |
| 25 |
information). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Thomas Deutschmann |
| 31 |
aka Whissi |
Archives