From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from starfish.geekisp.com (starfish.geekisp.com [216.168.135.166]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8571B73192 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:30:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9630 invoked by uid 1003); 15 Dec 2015 16:30:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.11.140?) (philip@opensdr.com@108.44.110.59) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 15 Dec 2015 16:30:06 -0000 To: Mariano Lopez , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <567039E1.5000205@linux.intel.com> From: Philip Balister Message-ID: <5670400E.6030201@balister.org> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:30:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <567039E1.5000205@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [RFC] Mark of upstream CVE patches X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:30:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I also suggest copying the https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-security list. Philip On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, Mariano Lopez wrote: > There is an initiative to track vulnerable software being built (see > bugs 8119 and 7515). The idea is to have a testing tool that would check > the recipe versions against CVEs. In order to accomplish such task there > is need to reliable mark the patches from upstream that solve CVEs. > > There have been two options to mark the patches that solve CVEs: > > 1. Have "CVE" and the CVE number as the patch filename. > Pros: > Doesn't require a new tag. > Cons: > It is not flexible to add more information, for example two CVEs in > the same patch > > 2. Add a new tag in the patch that have the CVE information. > Pros: > It is flexible and can add more information. > Cons: > Require a change in the patch metadata. > > What I would recommend is to add a new tag in the patch, it must contain > the CVE ID. With this it would be possible to look for the CVE > information easily in the testing tool or in NIST, MITRE, or another web > page. For example, this would be part of the patch for CVE-2013-6435, > currently in OE-Core: > > -- snip -- > > Upstream-Status: Backport > CVE: CVE-2013-6435 > > Reference: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2013-6435 > > -- snip -- > > The expected output of this discussion is a standard format for CVE > patches that most, if not all, of community members agree on. > > Please let me know your comments. > > Cheers, > > Mariano Lopez From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from starfish.geekisp.com (starfish.geekisp.com [216.168.135.166]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85B3473193 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:30:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9630 invoked by uid 1003); 15 Dec 2015 16:30:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.11.140?) (philip@opensdr.com@108.44.110.59) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 15 Dec 2015 16:30:06 -0000 To: Mariano Lopez , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <567039E1.5000205@linux.intel.com> From: Philip Balister Message-ID: <5670400E.6030201@balister.org> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:30:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <567039E1.5000205@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Mark of upstream CVE patches X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:30:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I also suggest copying the https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-security list. Philip On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, Mariano Lopez wrote: > There is an initiative to track vulnerable software being built (see > bugs 8119 and 7515). The idea is to have a testing tool that would check > the recipe versions against CVEs. In order to accomplish such task there > is need to reliable mark the patches from upstream that solve CVEs. > > There have been two options to mark the patches that solve CVEs: > > 1. Have "CVE" and the CVE number as the patch filename. > Pros: > Doesn't require a new tag. > Cons: > It is not flexible to add more information, for example two CVEs in > the same patch > > 2. Add a new tag in the patch that have the CVE information. > Pros: > It is flexible and can add more information. > Cons: > Require a change in the patch metadata. > > What I would recommend is to add a new tag in the patch, it must contain > the CVE ID. With this it would be possible to look for the CVE > information easily in the testing tool or in NIST, MITRE, or another web > page. For example, this would be part of the patch for CVE-2013-6435, > currently in OE-Core: > > -- snip -- > > Upstream-Status: Backport > CVE: CVE-2013-6435 > > Reference: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2013-6435 > > -- snip -- > > The expected output of this discussion is a standard format for CVE > patches that most, if not all, of community members agree on. > > Please let me know your comments. > > Cheers, > > Mariano Lopez