| 1 |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:25:14 +0100 |
| 2 |
Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 2016-12-15 22:43, Yury German wrote: |
| 4 |
> > It does sound good, but not practical as it will introduce confusion |
| 5 |
> > for the users especially those that do not constantly maintain their |
| 6 |
> > system and only update the security patches. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I am wondering if these people understand that we also have security |
| 9 |
> bugs without GLSAs: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> - Nowadays fuzz testing becomes more and more popular. But researchers |
| 12 |
> often only report on their results without further investigations. |
| 13 |
> Upstream will fix reported problems but often nobody knows if you |
| 14 |
> could really exploit the findings. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> - We just don't have the man power to write a GLSA for any potential |
| 17 |
> security problem. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> - Once it was decided to not issue a GLSA I think we never revise |
| 20 |
> decisions unless someone poke us or we gain information about an |
| 21 |
> exploit/active attack in the wild. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> So maybe we should also consider adding a new option to check for |
| 25 |
> package updates based on security bugs without GLSA (I guess this |
| 26 |
> would also need an update on Bugzilla to allows us tracking/exporting |
| 27 |
> such information). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Perhaps it's time to realise that security bugs aren't that |
| 30 |
interesting, and that random data loss bugs and just plain missing |
| 31 |
features can be far more impactful in practice than some obscure |
| 32 |
security issue. All treating security bugs specially does is play into |
| 33 |
the "look at me, I'm important so you should pay me money or I'll put |
| 34 |
out another press release" drama certain consulting companies have set |
| 35 |
up. Broken code is broken whether or not the bug has been given a cute |
| 36 |
name and logo. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives