Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Christopher Díaz Riveros" <chrisadr@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [pre-glep] Security Project Structure
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 02:36:50
Message-Id: 1543977395.2619.9.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [pre-glep] Security Project Structure by Michael Orlitzky
El mar, 04-12-2018 a las 17:05 -0500, Michael Orlitzky escribió:
> On 12/4/18 4:05 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > > I personally don't agree with part of this section; security is > > relative, and if it is stated to not be supported there are no security > > assumptions. If anything the removal of these arches as security > > supported demonstrates an active decisions not to support them, and > > signals to users of these arches that they can't depend on security > > information from Gentoo. Stable generally means a stable tree of > > dependencies, without security assumptions, if this is e.g used in a > > closed lab that likely doesn't impact much. > > > > This is technically correct, but: how many users even know what a > security-supported arch is? I would guess zero, to a decimal point or > two. Where would I encounter that information in my daily life? > > If I pick up any software system that's run by professionals and that > has a dedicated security team, my out-of-the-box assumption is that > there aren't any known, glaring, and totally fixable security > vulnerabilities being quietly handed to me. > > Having a stable arch that isn't security-supported is a meta-fail... we > have a system that fails open by giving people something that looks like > it should be safe and then (when it bites them) saying "but you didn't > read the fine print!" It should be the other way around: they should > have to read the fine print before they can use those arches. >
Or you could, as the GLEP states, try to give them the best set of packages (to our knowledge) so that he/she does not need to read the fine print. That's one of the main reasons I personally wanted to remove the "security supported list" to a plain "stable == secure (to the best of our knowledge)", which should accomplish the final goal: give the end-user something that is in both qa and security the best possible output we can offer. Best regards, -- Christopher Díaz Riveros Gentoo Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: E517 5ECB 8152 98E4 FEBC 2BAA 4DBB D10F 0FDD 2547

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature